Uttarakhand High Court
Abdul Rahman And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 August, 2016
Author: U.C.Dhyani
Bench: U.C.Dhyani
WPCRL No. 951 of 2016 U.C.Dhyani, J.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, present for the writ petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. V. S. Rathore, Mr. Milind Sagar and Mr. V. S. Mahra, Brief Holders, present for the State/respondents no. 1 & 2.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek to quash the Case Crime No. 202 of 2016, under Sections 323, 325 & 506 of IPC, PS Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for the State and perused the documents brought on record.
In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273, the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioners shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied.
Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest of the petitioners.
Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 08.08.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.
The Criminal Writ Petition is summarily disposed of with the direction as above.
In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.
(U.C.Dhyani, J.) 01.08.2016 Kaushal