Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Prajapati And 2 Others vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 23 August, 2022
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10683 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Prajapati And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,K.K.Rao,Pradeep Kumar Srinette Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and Sri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for the informant.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 24.07.2022 being Case Crime No.178 of 2022 under Section 323, 504, 506, 354B, 379 and 452 IPC, Police Station- Bakhira, District- Sant Kabir Nagar and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
The submission is that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others) in which guidelines have been framed following the judgement of the Apex Court in different cases, relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less.
The investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognized through the repetitive pronouncements of the Apex Court, which is on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Ref. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41-A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. The same has been elaborately dealt with in paragraphs 7.1 to 12 of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).
We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by this Court in the above noted judgement are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in view of the judgments cited above.
Order Date :- 23.8.2022 SK Goswami