Allahabad High Court
Gajendra Pal Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 July, 2022
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9010 of 2022 Petitioner :- Gajendra Pal Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is permitted to correct the array of parties. He may do so during the course of the day.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 11.04.2022 registered as Case Crime No.308 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
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 41A 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 recognised 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 41A, 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 judgements 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 :- 15.7.2022/Aditya