DS Chewing Products LLP v. State of U.P. and another) whereby the order dated

no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner based on the FIRs listed in the writ petition. Since the revisionist had been an accused in several FIRs relating to Bike Bot Scam across different police stations, aforesaid Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 was moved by him before the Hon'ble Apex Court to club all the FIRs under the Bike Boat Scam and at the same time a prayer for bail was also made with respect to all such FIRs filed in U.P. or NCT of Delhi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an interim order dated 6.7.2021 and it was directed categorically that the revisionist is protected from arrest in any past, present or future FIRs registered in connection with Bike Boat cases. Despite the same on 16.2.2025 he was picked up by the police and he was humiliated and tortured for nearly four hours and then he was released. Further, it is urged that despite order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the U.P. police again picked him up from New Delhi 3 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 in present case on 18.2.2025 at 2.19 p.m. whereas no F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist till the time he was held by the police. It is also submitted that the arrest of the revisionist was totally illegal flouting the specific directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court for not arresting the revisionist in any case without prior permission of Hon'ble Apex Court. No rule of protocol was followed by the U.P. Police and without informing the Delhi Police the revisionist was picked up from Delhi which was a different State, however, in the late evening the U.P. police informed the same to the Delhi Police. It is also submitted that the FIR of the said case was lodged at P.S. Beta-II, Gautam Budh Nagar on 18.2.2025 at 14.43 p.m., hence, at the time of arresting the accused there was no FIR lodged against him and it was a clear violation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

6. It is further submitted that when the revisionist was picked up by the U.P. Police on 16.2.2025 a Habeas Corpus Petition was moved before the Delhi High Court registered as W.P. (Criminal) 598 of 2025 and Criminal M.A. 5439 of 2025 and the Delhi High Court proceeded with the matter and reports were called for from Delhi as well as U.P. Police and it was found by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court that the arrest of the revisionist was illegal, arbitrary and without following the prescribed norms and rules to arrest any person from another State. It is further submitted that no arrest memo was prepared by the police nor any copy of the same was provided to the accused and he was even not informed the grounds of arrest and that was a clear violation of valuable fundamental right of the revisionist. However, the Delhi High Court observed that the revisionist was picked by NOIDA police on 18.2.2025 at 14.19 p.m. which was prior to the information given to the police at P.S. Beta-II, Greater NOIDA, U.P. and also prior to the registration of any FIR in the matter. It is also urged that in these circumstances a gross violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court was committed by the U.P. Police particularly of the direction not to arrest the revisionist in any past, present or further FIR. It is further submitted that since the offences described in the FIR against the revisionist relate to the offences wherein maximum period of imprisonment is upto seven years, the revisionist ought to have been served with a notice under Section 35(3) to 35(6) of BNSS (Section 41-A of CrPC) and he could not be arrested at all by the police. It is further submitted that when the revisionist was brought before the Magistrate concerned seeking remand, the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 was also 4 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 perused by the Magistrate concerned and relevant part of the same was quoted in his order dated 19.2.2025 which reads as under : "We make it clear that this order will ensure to the petitioner in connection with FIRs mentioned in the writ petition or any other FIRs to be filed including for other provisions / enactments invoked against the petitioner on the basis of the said FIRs. in case the State of U.P. intends to proceed against the petitioner in connection with any other independent offence must take prior permission of this Court." In these circumstances following the instructions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the revisionist could not be arrested at all in any case which covers the future case as well, the Magistrate concerned opined that the arrest of the revisionist was made violating the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and he rejected the application for grant of remand vide order dated 19.2.2025.

7. It is further submitted that the said order was challenged by way of revision before the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar which was registered as criminal revision no. 209 of 2025. It is also submitted that the revisional court refused to grant immunity to the revisionist granted to him by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 6.7.2021 and in an arbitrary and illegal manner the revision was allowed and the order dated 19.2.2025 passed by the C.J.M. concerned was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate concerned for fresh hearing vide order dated 6.8.2025. In the aforesaid circumstances, prayer was made by the learned counsel for the revisionist to set-aside the order dated 6.8.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the sole ground for refusing to grant remand to the accused revisionist by the Magistrate concerned was the order dated

6.7.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 but the Magistrate concerned did not bother to take cognizance of the further developments in the said writ petition and as a matter of fact the said writ petition was finally decided and the result thereof was that all the interim orders passed in the said writ petition merged into the final order and the interim order dated 6.7.2021 was also merged in the said order when the aforesaid writ petition was partly allowed and disposed of vide order dated 5 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025

12.5.2022. Resultantly the interim relief given to the revisionist vide order dated 6.7.2021 also came to an end on 12.5.2022 when the aforesaid writ petition was decided, and therefore, no interim order was operative in favour of the revisionist when he was arrested by the police. The Magistrate concerned totally ignored the order dated 12.5.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that the protection order dated 6.7.2021 was in reference of cases concerned with bike boat scam cases whereas the present case is totally unconnected with the cases of bike boat scam and as such the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court had no concern with the present matter. It is also submitted that the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar took notice of this fact and that is why the order dated 19.2.2025 passed by the Magistrate concerned was set aside.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

10. The aforesaid submissions made by the parties were examined by this Court on the basis of the materials available on record and it is found that the interim protection granted in favour of the revisionist by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 6.7.2021 passed in the Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 came to an end on 12.5.2022 when the said writ petition was finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court partly allowing the same but however it was nowhere mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court as to extension of the interim order dated 6.7.2021. Hence, the view taken by the concerned Magistrate was erroneous and the observation made by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in the impugned order was in accordance with the material available on record. Hence, upto that extent the order passed by the revisional court is affirmed.

11. Another issue of contention as submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar on the point of remand was an interlocutory order against which criminal revision is not maintainable. Both the sides have placed their rival submissions over this point. Besides it an issue was also raised as to whether the revisionist had locus standi to file the instant criminal revision or not.

12. The Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in the impugned order dealt with this issue by placing reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble 6 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 Apex Court and it would be apt to put the extract of the same to meet out the controversy, which is as under : "K.Pandurangan Vs S.S.R Velusamy, (2003) 8 SCC 625 and Nadir Khan Vs The State of Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 2205, in which it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that as the power of revision can be excersised by the Revisional Court suo moto, hence, even and outsider, stranger or third party can question the legality of the order passed by the Lower Court and file criminal revision against the order. In the case in hand revisionist is the complainant of the case who has lodged the FIR against the respondent/accused and others so he is the victim of the case and as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he has got the right to file a revision petition against the impugned order. So the court also finds no force in the second contention for the respondent."

13. I find myself in full agreement with the view taken by the revisional court.

14. This Court takes notice of the fact that the present criminal revision has been preferred by Sushil Kaushik, who is the authorized signatory of DS Chewing Products LLP, Office at A-86, Sector-2, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, and is informant of this case as well. Hence he had locus standi to prefer this criminal revision.

15. So far as the maintainability of the present criminal revision is concerned it has been vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that a remand order falls into the category of 'interlocutory order', hence, the criminal revision is not maintainable against such order. However, the said issue has already been discussed and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 13.5.2025 in Criminal Msc. No. 209 of 2025 at the initial stage when the instant revision was filed.

16. In Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat 1988 (2) SCC 271, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered several decisions and observed thus also considering the dictum of law pronounced in Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 and it is observed "……………… In fact in Madhu Limaye's case MANU/SC/0103/1977 : AIR 1978 SC 47 : 1978 Cri LJ 165. the larger Bench of the Supreme Court 7 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 has expressed an opinion that the broad statement of law contained in Amar Nath's case needed certain modification. However, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the decision in Amar Nath's case and held that the order releasing some of the accused on perusal of the police report and subsequently summoning them was not an interlocutory order but was a final order. To my mind, reading the two cases together Amar Nath's case and Madhu Limaye's case, no doubt is left about the legal position, namely, that an order rejecting the Department's application for remand of the accused to judicial custody is a final order and not an interlocutory order. The learned Judge of this Court in R. Shakuntala, finally came to conclusion that an order rejecting application for remand of the accused to judicial custody is a final order and not an interlocutory order. This will be applicable with equal force to the refusal of request for police custody also. As such, the order passed by the Magistrate rejecting request for police custody cannot be treated as interlocutory order because the police cannot repeat and make applications again and again for police custody after the application for police custody had been rejected once and particularly in view of the limitation under Section 167 Cr.P.C. that the police custody may be granted only during first 15 days after the arrest or detention and not thereafter. If such application for police custody is rejected, that order becomes final and the Investigating Officer is permanently deprived of seeking police custody of that accused for the purpose of further investigation, discovery, etc. even though the offence may be very serious.........."

17. The Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar has referred two decisions in his order, one of Bombay High Court and another of Gujarat High Court i.e. Ambrish Rangshahi Patnigere vs. State of Maharahashtra , 2011 CrLJ 515 (Bombay) and Kandhal Sarman Jadeda vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 CrLJ (Gujarat - DB) wherein it has been held that order rejecting police custody remand is not interlocutory order but a final order but the police custody may be granted only during first 15 days after arrest or detention and not thereafter. Order refusing to grant police custody is a final order. Revision against said order is maintainable.

18. Another plea assailing the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar was also put forth by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the arrest of the accused revisionist was made 8 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 prior to lodging of the FIR without any authority by the U.P. police. It is further submitted that the Habeas Corpus Petition was preferred before the Delhi High Court when the revisionist was not found anywhere and in the said writ petition no. 598 of 2025 a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court took cognizance of the matter and during enquiry the factual position was brought before the Court that the FIR of this case was lodged on 18.2.2025 at 14.43 p.m. which also took place in the GD as well. It is also submitted that the UP police without giving information to the police of Delhi entered into Delhi area which is another State and picked the revisionist from Delhi near the Connaught place and as a matter of fact no FIR was lodged against the revisionist till the time of his arrest. It is also found that the arrest of the revisionist was made by the police personnel of the state of U.P. who were not in uniform and the vehicles used in the commission of the said act were not the police vehicles. It is also vehemently submitted that the offences alleged against the accused revisionist were punishable upto imprisonment of seven years and on this ground as well the police could not arrest the revisionist rather the police officer should have followed the procedure provided under Section 41-A CrPC. Since without lodging of any FIR the revisionist was arrested all the proceedings were vitiated and against the law. The revisional court at Gautam Budh Nagar did not pay any attention to the aforesaid facts and passed the impugned order.

19. In reply to the aforesaid pleas, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that when the accused revisionist was brought before the Magistrate concerned seeking his remand by the police, FIR was definitely lodged because a case crime number is clearly indicated in the order passed by the Magistrate concerned. It is further submitted that still there is no cogent proof of the fact that it was the U.P. police who picked up the revisionist from Connaught Place, Delhi as there was no CCTV footage of this fact and the faces of the persons were not clearly visible and even the number of vehicles could not be traced exactly. Hence, no final conclusion can be drawn that before lodging of the FIR the accused revisionist was arrested by the U.P. police. It is also submitted that if for the sake of argument it is supposed that rules of protocol in respect of arresting a person in another State was not followed by the U.P. police, it is a matter to be ascertained before the appropriate forum and authority and a complaint ought to be lodged against the U.P. police for the default, if any. So far as the remand is concerned, it can be safely concluded 9 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 that at the time of presentation of the accused before the Magistrate concerned, FIR against him was definitely lodged.

20. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Advocate General made a submission that the plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist that all the offences levelled against the revisionist are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years is incorrect as the accused revisionist was challaned under Sections 316 and 331 of BNS as well. It is also submitted that under Section 331 of BNS maximum period of imprisonment is prescribed upto 10 years or 14 years and in the same fashion the maximum period of imprisonment under Section 316 of BNS has been prescribed as ten years. Further, the case in hand does not relate to the bike boat scam cases.

21. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist did not come with clean hands before the Court and the material fact was cancealed by him before the C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA vehemently submitted that the protection granted in favour of the revisionist by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 6.7.2021 came to an end on

12.5.2022 when the final order was passed in the matter and resultantly all the interim orders were merged with the final order and hence, the revisionist had no protection at the time when he was brought before the concerned Magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar and his remand was refused by the C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar only on the ground that he is still protected by the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021, which was a wrong notion. It is also submitted that such person is not entitled for any assistance of the Court.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 560, held that a writ remedy is an equitable one. Any person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It neither should suppress any material fact, nor take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law.

23. In the case of Amar Singh v Union of India and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, 10 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and held that such litigants have come with "unclean hands" and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.

24. In Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Others, (2013) 2 SCC 398 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the party not approaching the court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief specifically under Art. 136 of Constitution.

25. I find myself in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Advocate General in reply to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my view, there is no infirmity or illegaly in the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 209 of 2025 (DS Chewing Products LLP vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby the order dated

19.2.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, was set aside. The said order dated 06.8.2025 is liable to be affirmed and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

27. Accordingly the criminal revision is dismissed and the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 is affirmed. September 26, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner based on the FIRs listed in the writ petition. Since the revisionist had been an accused in several FIRs relating to Bike Bot Scam across different police stations, aforesaid Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 was moved by him before the Hon'ble Apex Court to club all the FIRs under the Bike Boat Scam and at the same time a prayer for bail was also made with respect to all such FIRs filed in U.P. or NCT of Delhi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an interim order dated 6.7.2021 and it was directed categorically that the revisionist is protected from arrest in any past, present or future FIRs registered in connection with Bike Boat cases. Despite the same on 16.2.2025 he was picked up by the police and he was humiliated and tortured for nearly four hours and then he was released. Further, it is urged that despite order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the U.P. police again picked him up from New Delhi 3 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 in present case on 18.2.2025 at 2.19 p.m. whereas no F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist till the time he was held by the police. It is also submitted that the arrest of the revisionist was totally illegal flouting the specific directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court for not arresting the revisionist in any case without prior permission of Hon'ble Apex Court. No rule of protocol was followed by the U.P. Police and without informing the Delhi Police the revisionist was picked up from Delhi which was a different State, however, in the late evening the U.P. police informed the same to the Delhi Police. It is also submitted that the FIR of the said case was lodged at P.S. Beta-II, Gautam Budh Nagar on 18.2.2025 at 14.43 p.m., hence, at the time of arresting the accused there was no FIR lodged against him and it was a clear violation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

6. It is further submitted that when the revisionist was picked up by the U.P. Police on 16.2.2025 a Habeas Corpus Petition was moved before the Delhi High Court registered as W.P. (Criminal) 598 of 2025 and Criminal M.A. 5439 of 2025 and the Delhi High Court proceeded with the matter and reports were called for from Delhi as well as U.P. Police and it was found by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court that the arrest of the revisionist was illegal, arbitrary and without following the prescribed norms and rules to arrest any person from another State. It is further submitted that no arrest memo was prepared by the police nor any copy of the same was provided to the accused and he was even not informed the grounds of arrest and that was a clear violation of valuable fundamental right of the revisionist. However, the Delhi High Court observed that the revisionist was picked by NOIDA police on 18.2.2025 at 14.19 p.m. which was prior to the information given to the police at P.S. Beta-II, Greater NOIDA, U.P. and also prior to the registration of any FIR in the matter. It is also urged that in these circumstances a gross violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court was committed by the U.P. Police particularly of the direction not to arrest the revisionist in any past, present or further FIR. It is further submitted that since the offences described in the FIR against the revisionist relate to the offences wherein maximum period of imprisonment is upto seven years, the revisionist ought to have been served with a notice under Section 35(3) to 35(6) of BNSS (Section 41-A of CrPC) and he could not be arrested at all by the police. It is further submitted that when the revisionist was brought before the Magistrate concerned seeking remand, the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 was also 4 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 perused by the Magistrate concerned and relevant part of the same was quoted in his order dated 19.2.2025 which reads as under : "We make it clear that this order will ensure to the petitioner in connection with FIRs mentioned in the writ petition or any other FIRs to be filed including for other provisions / enactments invoked against the petitioner on the basis of the said FIRs. in case the State of U.P. intends to proceed against the petitioner in connection with any other independent offence must take prior permission of this Court." In these circumstances following the instructions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the revisionist could not be arrested at all in any case which covers the future case as well, the Magistrate concerned opined that the arrest of the revisionist was made violating the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and he rejected the application for grant of remand vide order dated 19.2.2025.

7. It is further submitted that the said order was challenged by way of revision before the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar which was registered as criminal revision no. 209 of 2025. It is also submitted that the revisional court refused to grant immunity to the revisionist granted to him by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 6.7.2021 and in an arbitrary and illegal manner the revision was allowed and the order dated 19.2.2025 passed by the C.J.M. concerned was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate concerned for fresh hearing vide order dated 6.8.2025. In the aforesaid circumstances, prayer was made by the learned counsel for the revisionist to set-aside the order dated 6.8.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the sole ground for refusing to grant remand to the accused revisionist by the Magistrate concerned was the order dated

6.7.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 but the Magistrate concerned did not bother to take cognizance of the further developments in the said writ petition and as a matter of fact the said writ petition was finally decided and the result thereof was that all the interim orders passed in the said writ petition merged into the final order and the interim order dated 6.7.2021 was also merged in the said order when the aforesaid writ petition was partly allowed and disposed of vide order dated 5 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025

12.5.2022. Resultantly the interim relief given to the revisionist vide order dated 6.7.2021 also came to an end on 12.5.2022 when the aforesaid writ petition was decided, and therefore, no interim order was operative in favour of the revisionist when he was arrested by the police. The Magistrate concerned totally ignored the order dated 12.5.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that the protection order dated 6.7.2021 was in reference of cases concerned with bike boat scam cases whereas the present case is totally unconnected with the cases of bike boat scam and as such the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court had no concern with the present matter. It is also submitted that the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar took notice of this fact and that is why the order dated 19.2.2025 passed by the Magistrate concerned was set aside.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

10. The aforesaid submissions made by the parties were examined by this Court on the basis of the materials available on record and it is found that the interim protection granted in favour of the revisionist by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 6.7.2021 passed in the Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 came to an end on 12.5.2022 when the said writ petition was finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court partly allowing the same but however it was nowhere mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court as to extension of the interim order dated 6.7.2021. Hence, the view taken by the concerned Magistrate was erroneous and the observation made by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in the impugned order was in accordance with the material available on record. Hence, upto that extent the order passed by the revisional court is affirmed.

11. Another issue of contention as submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar on the point of remand was an interlocutory order against which criminal revision is not maintainable. Both the sides have placed their rival submissions over this point. Besides it an issue was also raised as to whether the revisionist had locus standi to file the instant criminal revision or not.

12. The Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in the impugned order dealt with this issue by placing reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble 6 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 Apex Court and it would be apt to put the extract of the same to meet out the controversy, which is as under : "K.Pandurangan Vs S.S.R Velusamy, (2003) 8 SCC 625 and Nadir Khan Vs The State of Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 2205, in which it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that as the power of revision can be excersised by the Revisional Court suo moto, hence, even and outsider, stranger or third party can question the legality of the order passed by the Lower Court and file criminal revision against the order. In the case in hand revisionist is the complainant of the case who has lodged the FIR against the respondent/accused and others so he is the victim of the case and as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he has got the right to file a revision petition against the impugned order. So the court also finds no force in the second contention for the respondent."

13. I find myself in full agreement with the view taken by the revisional court.

14. This Court takes notice of the fact that the present criminal revision has been preferred by Sushil Kaushik, who is the authorized signatory of DS Chewing Products LLP, Office at A-86, Sector-2, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, and is informant of this case as well. Hence he had locus standi to prefer this criminal revision.

15. So far as the maintainability of the present criminal revision is concerned it has been vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that a remand order falls into the category of 'interlocutory order', hence, the criminal revision is not maintainable against such order. However, the said issue has already been discussed and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 13.5.2025 in Criminal Msc. No. 209 of 2025 at the initial stage when the instant revision was filed.

16. In Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat 1988 (2) SCC 271, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered several decisions and observed thus also considering the dictum of law pronounced in Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 and it is observed "……………… In fact in Madhu Limaye's case MANU/SC/0103/1977 : AIR 1978 SC 47 : 1978 Cri LJ 165. the larger Bench of the Supreme Court 7 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 has expressed an opinion that the broad statement of law contained in Amar Nath's case needed certain modification. However, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the decision in Amar Nath's case and held that the order releasing some of the accused on perusal of the police report and subsequently summoning them was not an interlocutory order but was a final order. To my mind, reading the two cases together Amar Nath's case and Madhu Limaye's case, no doubt is left about the legal position, namely, that an order rejecting the Department's application for remand of the accused to judicial custody is a final order and not an interlocutory order. The learned Judge of this Court in R. Shakuntala, finally came to conclusion that an order rejecting application for remand of the accused to judicial custody is a final order and not an interlocutory order. This will be applicable with equal force to the refusal of request for police custody also. As such, the order passed by the Magistrate rejecting request for police custody cannot be treated as interlocutory order because the police cannot repeat and make applications again and again for police custody after the application for police custody had been rejected once and particularly in view of the limitation under Section 167 Cr.P.C. that the police custody may be granted only during first 15 days after the arrest or detention and not thereafter. If such application for police custody is rejected, that order becomes final and the Investigating Officer is permanently deprived of seeking police custody of that accused for the purpose of further investigation, discovery, etc. even though the offence may be very serious.........."

17. The Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar has referred two decisions in his order, one of Bombay High Court and another of Gujarat High Court i.e. Ambrish Rangshahi Patnigere vs. State of Maharahashtra , 2011 CrLJ 515 (Bombay) and Kandhal Sarman Jadeda vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 CrLJ (Gujarat - DB) wherein it has been held that order rejecting police custody remand is not interlocutory order but a final order but the police custody may be granted only during first 15 days after arrest or detention and not thereafter. Order refusing to grant police custody is a final order. Revision against said order is maintainable.

18. Another plea assailing the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar was also put forth by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the arrest of the accused revisionist was made 8 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 prior to lodging of the FIR without any authority by the U.P. police. It is further submitted that the Habeas Corpus Petition was preferred before the Delhi High Court when the revisionist was not found anywhere and in the said writ petition no. 598 of 2025 a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court took cognizance of the matter and during enquiry the factual position was brought before the Court that the FIR of this case was lodged on 18.2.2025 at 14.43 p.m. which also took place in the GD as well. It is also submitted that the UP police without giving information to the police of Delhi entered into Delhi area which is another State and picked the revisionist from Delhi near the Connaught place and as a matter of fact no FIR was lodged against the revisionist till the time of his arrest. It is also found that the arrest of the revisionist was made by the police personnel of the state of U.P. who were not in uniform and the vehicles used in the commission of the said act were not the police vehicles. It is also vehemently submitted that the offences alleged against the accused revisionist were punishable upto imprisonment of seven years and on this ground as well the police could not arrest the revisionist rather the police officer should have followed the procedure provided under Section 41-A CrPC. Since without lodging of any FIR the revisionist was arrested all the proceedings were vitiated and against the law. The revisional court at Gautam Budh Nagar did not pay any attention to the aforesaid facts and passed the impugned order.

19. In reply to the aforesaid pleas, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that when the accused revisionist was brought before the Magistrate concerned seeking his remand by the police, FIR was definitely lodged because a case crime number is clearly indicated in the order passed by the Magistrate concerned. It is further submitted that still there is no cogent proof of the fact that it was the U.P. police who picked up the revisionist from Connaught Place, Delhi as there was no CCTV footage of this fact and the faces of the persons were not clearly visible and even the number of vehicles could not be traced exactly. Hence, no final conclusion can be drawn that before lodging of the FIR the accused revisionist was arrested by the U.P. police. It is also submitted that if for the sake of argument it is supposed that rules of protocol in respect of arresting a person in another State was not followed by the U.P. police, it is a matter to be ascertained before the appropriate forum and authority and a complaint ought to be lodged against the U.P. police for the default, if any. So far as the remand is concerned, it can be safely concluded 9 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 that at the time of presentation of the accused before the Magistrate concerned, FIR against him was definitely lodged.

20. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Advocate General made a submission that the plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist that all the offences levelled against the revisionist are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years is incorrect as the accused revisionist was challaned under Sections 316 and 331 of BNS as well. It is also submitted that under Section 331 of BNS maximum period of imprisonment is prescribed upto 10 years or 14 years and in the same fashion the maximum period of imprisonment under Section 316 of BNS has been prescribed as ten years. Further, the case in hand does not relate to the bike boat scam cases.

21. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist did not come with clean hands before the Court and the material fact was cancealed by him before the C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA vehemently submitted that the protection granted in favour of the revisionist by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 6.7.2021 came to an end on

12.5.2022 when the final order was passed in the matter and resultantly all the interim orders were merged with the final order and hence, the revisionist had no protection at the time when he was brought before the concerned Magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar and his remand was refused by the C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar only on the ground that he is still protected by the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021, which was a wrong notion. It is also submitted that such person is not entitled for any assistance of the Court.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 560, held that a writ remedy is an equitable one. Any person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It neither should suppress any material fact, nor take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law.

23. In the case of Amar Singh v Union of India and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, 10 CRLR No. 4993 of 2025 initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and held that such litigants have come with "unclean hands" and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.

24. In Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Others, (2013) 2 SCC 398 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the party not approaching the court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief specifically under Art. 136 of Constitution.

25. I find myself in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Advocate General in reply to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my view, there is no infirmity or illegaly in the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 209 of 2025 (DS Chewing Products LLP vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby the order dated

19.2.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, was set aside. The said order dated 06.8.2025 is liable to be affirmed and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

27. Accordingly the criminal revision is dismissed and the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 is affirmed. September 26, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad