Writ Petition No. 918 of 2012 · Uttarakhand High Court · 2012

Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions Mr. P.S. Danu, Brief Holder, for the State Hon(cid:146)ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This judgment will dispose of all the above titled petitions being interlinked with each other. The theme of all the petitions engendered from an FIR lodged by Pradeep Bansal on 26.8.2012 against the unknown persons regarding an incident of theft, allegedly occurred in his house in the intervening night of 25/26.8.2012. The said FIR pertaining to crime no.322 of 2012 was lodged at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar, on which the Police came into motion and shown the recovery of alleged stolen articles from the six accused persons, namely, Ikhlakh, Anshul, Sonu, 2 Naushad, Neeraj and Nikki on 21.9.2012 at 02.30 PM in the outskirts of Haridwar city. Thus, all those accused were arrested on the same day and were produced for remand before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on the next day i.e. on 22.9.2012 at 3.30 PM. It has been alleged on behalf of petitioner that in fact he was lifted from his house by the police on 18.9.2012 purely on the basis of suspicion and was detained at the police station in the illegal confinement without making any necessary entry in the G.D. for his arrest. Even he was harassed by the police. Immediately after his alleged lifting from his residence, his wife filed a HABC Petition no.33 of 2012 on 20.9.2012 before this Court wherein it was ordered to produce the corpus of Neeraj Verma in the court. His wife also sent telegrams to the concerned authorities informing the illegal detention of her husband at the police station which were made basis for filing the said petition. It has been averred that the Police showed the false recovery, and that the remand was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate even after 24 hours of his shown arrest, i.e. after the maximum time period under the Cr.P.C. within which the arrested person is required to be produced before the Court. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 22.9.2012 explains that the accused was produced before him at 3.30 PM. The reason put forth by the Investigating Officer for producing the accused with delay of one hour was that the police station was at a distance of about 11 kilometers from the court precincts, and that the pathway generally remains busy with heavy vehicles. Hence they could not find any 3 suitable transport for commutation to the court, as such, most of the distance they had to cover on foot. It has now been held in a plethora of judgments by various High Courts, as also by the Apex Court that the journey time consumed by the police in producing the arrested person is to be excluded if it is beyond control of the police personnel assigned the task. This way, the explanation submitted by the police before the Magistrate was sufficient and thus, this Court do not find any force in writ petition no.1077 of 2012 seeking to quash the order dated 22.9.2012. The said petition is accordingly dismissed. As regards petition no.918 of 2012, therein the prayer has been advanced to quash the FIR dated 22.9.2012 lodged by S.I. Sukhpal Singh at 23.35 PM at P.S. Ranipur, pertaining to crime no.378 of 2012 u/s 353 IPC. Allegedly, the occurrence took place at 12.50 PM on

22.9.2012 and it has been averred in the FIR that all the afore-named accused persons, after getting themselves medically examined in district hospital, were taken to the court precincts at 12.50 PM. There, the petitioner Neeraj Verma confronted by his counsel, present in the court and the latter gave him some yellow metal article. Petitioner after scratching his belly skin by that metal, put the same in his mouth. At that time, he was checked from doing so by constable Kuldeep Dimri and S.I. Puran Singh. The police personnel also snatched that yellow metal which was found to be the earring. Thus, this action of the petitioner was reported under the crime no.378/2012 at P.S. Ranipur giving rise to the offence u/s 353 IPC. Learned counsel has contended that even if the version of police, as indicated in the general diary as well as the 4 statements of the police official for producing him in the court for the purpose of remand is believed, in that case, the alleged occurrence at 12.50 PM on 22.9.2012 was not possible. The police has admitted that they left the P.S. Jwalapur seeking remand of petitioner at 13.30 PM on 22.9.2012. If they left the police station Jwalapur at 13.30 PM, and were in the court compound after consuming two hours in the journey from the police station up to the court, then the incident was not possible to take place at 12.50 PM within the court precincts. This argument has logic and acceptable. The Court accepts the petition no.918 of 2012 and hereby quashes the first information report dated 22.9.2012 pertaining to crime no.378 of 2012 u/s 353 IPC lodged at P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. Now so far as third petition bearing no.1040 of 2012 is concerned, the prayer has been advanced to quash the FIR dated 17.10.2012 against the petitioner implicating him for the offence u/s 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), pertaining to crime no.403 of 2012 lodged at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar. Learned counsel has argued that after filing of petition no.918 of 2012 seeking to quash the FIR dated 22.9.2012, a counter affidavit was called from the police by this Court and as soon as the said information was received by the police, they became further annoyed and implicated the petitioner by lodging the instant FIR u/s 2/3 of the Act against him. The gang chart, which was the basis for implicating the petitioner under the Act, indicates only two offences against him, one relates to crime no.322 of 2012 wherein the FIR was lodged on 26.8.2012 against unknown persons by Pradeep 5 Bansal (Supra) and this FIR is the same wherein the order of granting remand dated 22.9.2012 was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The second crime mentioned in the gang chart against the petitioner is crime no.378 of 2012 (wrongly mentioned as 313 of 2012) u/s 353 IPC which has been quashed above by this Court. So as per the spirit of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be assumed as a (cid:145)gangster(cid:146). The Court also do agree with this contention and finds that it was apparently a bias on the part of the Police to implicate the petitioner for such a serious offence under the Act. Thus, this petition no.1040 of 2012 is also allowed. Impugned FIR relating to crime no.403 of 2012, u/s 2/3 of the Act, registered at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed.

20.11.2012 Rdang (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)