Shivdutt @ Bhikko And 4 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 323, 504, 506
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Constitution of India art. 21
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA. Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 5.8.2022 being Case Crime No. 138 of 2022 under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(da) & 3(1) (dha) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Mant, Distt. Mathura 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 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 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 :- 8.9.2022 Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 323, 504, 506; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India — art. 21.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 08 Sep 2022. The bench was MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, GAJENDRA KUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.