Shubham Srivastava And Another vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

Heard Shri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nikhil Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned AGA for the State. Briefly put the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. is that on 05.08.2025 when the first informant was travelling from Gorakhpur, his vehicle was stopped at Ekla Bandh Rajghat Bridge by some unknown persons claiming to be officials of the Crime Branch. The said accused persons accosted the first informant that he was in possession of illegal firearms. The accused persons then forced him to sit in their four wheeler, and made an extortionist demand. The said accused persons drove the first informant to a nearby Jan Seva Kendra, and made him withdraw Rs. 90,000/-. The accused took the entire money from the first informant. They further demanded of Rs. 2,00,000/- and asked him to reach the appointed spot at 04:00 PM. On the subsequent day, the first informant received a phone call reminding him of the said amount to be paid to the extortionists. Learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that the accused persons were identified during the investigations. They are serving police personnel. Various implicatory evidences the course of have been investigations. These evidences include the incriminating call found against them during 2 CRLP No. 20555 of 2025 details and the location of the petitioners at the site of the incident at the relevant points in time. The investigation is still on foot. Prima facie, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are made out against the petitioners. At this stage no ground for interference with the investigations is made out. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid incriminating materials have not been disclosed in the writ petition. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. However, in view of preceding discussion the Court will proceed to decide the writ petition on its merits. Learned AGA contends that since all the accused persons are police officials and fair and independent investigations are in the instant case to preserve public faith in the law enforcement agencies. Considering the above said facts and the submissions of learned AGA it will not be in the interest of justice to extend the interim order granted on 18.09.2025 since it will hamper the police investigations. The discussion is fortified by the holding of the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported at (2021) 19 SCC 401: "28. Thus, it has been found that despite absolute proposition of law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah Jeelani [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] that such a blanket order of not to arrest till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, passed while declining to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC, as observed hereinabove, the High Courts have continued to pass such orders. Therefore, we again reiterate the law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah Jeelani [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and we direct all the High Courts to scrupulously follow the law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah Jeelani [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and the law laid down by this Court in the 3 CRLP No. 20555 of 2025 present case, which otherwise the High Courts are bound to follow. We caution the High Courts again against passing such orders of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be taken” till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, while not entertaining quashing petitions under Section 482CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

29. Now so far as the legality of the impugned interim order [P. Suresh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711] passed by the High Court directing the investigating agency/police “not to adopt any coercive steps” against the accused is concerned, for the reasons stated hereinbelow, the same is unsustainable:

29.1. That such a blanket interim order passed by the High Court affects the powers of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences, which otherwise is a statutory right/duty of the police under the relevant provisions of the CrPC.

29.2. That the interim order is a cryptic order.

29.3. That no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court, while passing such a blanket order of “no coercive steps to be adopted” by the police.

29.4. That it is not clear what the High Court meant by passing the order [P. Suresh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711] of “not to adopt any coercive steps”, as it is clear from the impugned interim order that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that so far as the accused are concerned, they are already protected by the interim protection granted by the learned Sessions Court, and therefore there was no further reason and/or justification for the High Court to pass such an interim order of “no coercive steps to be adopted”. If the High Court meant by passing such an interim order of “no coercive steps” directing the investigating agency/police not to further investigate, in that case, such a blanket order without assigning any reasons whatsoever and without even permitting the investigating agency to further investigate into the allegations of the cognizable offence is otherwise unsustainable. It has affected the right of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences. While passing such a blanket order, the High Court has not indicated any reasons." In wake of the preceding discussion the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. The interim order granted on 18.09.2025 is vacated. The investigations shall be personally monitored by the Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone on a regular basis. 4 CRLP No. 20555 of 2025 At this stage, Shri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other accused persons have been granted interim protection by this Court on the strength of the interim order passed in the instant writ petition. Faced with this learned AGA submits that the State shall file stay vacation application for vacation of the aforesaid interim orders granted to the other accused persons and for ensuring expeditious hearing of the said writ petitions. October 14, 2025 Dhananjai (Mrs. Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.) DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Shri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nikhil Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned AGA for the State. Briefly put the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. is that on 05.08.2025 when the first informant was travelling from Gorakhpur, his vehicle was stopped at Ekla Bandh Rajghat Bridge by some unknown persons claiming to be officials of the Crime Branch. The said accused persons accosted the first informant that he was in possession of illegal firearms. The accused persons then forced him to sit in their four wheeler, and made an extortionist demand. The said accused persons drove the first informant to a nearby Jan Seva Kendra, and made him withdraw Rs. 90,000/-. The accused took the entire money from the first informant. They further demanded of Rs. 2,00,000/- and asked him to reach the appointed spot at 04:00 PM. On the subsequent day, the first informant received a phone call reminding him of the said amount to be paid to the extortionists. Learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that the accused persons were identified during the investigations. They are serving police personnel. Various implicatory evidences the course of have been investigations. These evidences include the incriminating call found against them during 2 CRLP No. 20555 of 2025 details and the location of the petitioners at the site of the incident at the relevant points in time. The investigation is still on foot. Prima facie, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are made out against the petitioners. At this stage no ground for interference with the investigations is made out. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid incriminating materials have not been disclosed in the writ petition. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. However, in view of preceding discussion the Court will proceed to decide the writ petition on its merits. Learned AGA contends that since all the accused persons are police officials and fair and independent investigations are in the instant case to preserve public faith in the law enforcement agencies. Considering the above said facts and the submissions of learned AGA it will not be in the interest of justice to extend the interim order granted on 18.09.2025 since it will hamper the police investigations. The discussion is fortified by the holding of the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported at (2021) 19 SCC 401: "28. Thus, it has been found that despite absolute proposition of law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah Jeelani [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] that such a blanket order of not to arrest till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, passed while declining to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC, as observed hereinabove, the High Courts have continued to pass such orders. Therefore, we again reiterate the law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah Jeelani [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and we direct all the High Courts to scrupulously follow the law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah Jeelani [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and the law laid down by this Court in the 3 CRLP No. 20555 of 2025 present case, which otherwise the High Courts are bound to follow. We caution the High Courts again against passing such orders of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be taken” till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, while not entertaining quashing petitions under Section 482CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

29. Now so far as the legality of the impugned interim order [P. Suresh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711] passed by the High Court directing the investigating agency/police “not to adopt any coercive steps” against the accused is concerned, for the reasons stated hereinbelow, the same is unsustainable:

29.1. That such a blanket interim order passed by the High Court affects the powers of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences, which otherwise is a statutory right/duty of the police under the relevant provisions of the CrPC.

29.2. That the interim order is a cryptic order.

29.3. That no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court, while passing such a blanket order of “no coercive steps to be adopted” by the police.

29.4. That it is not clear what the High Court meant by passing the order [P. Suresh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711] of “not to adopt any coercive steps”, as it is clear from the impugned interim order that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that so far as the accused are concerned, they are already protected by the interim protection granted by the learned Sessions Court, and therefore there was no further reason and/or justification for the High Court to pass such an interim order of “no coercive steps to be adopted”. If the High Court meant by passing such an interim order of “no coercive steps” directing the investigating agency/police not to further investigate, in that case, such a blanket order without assigning any reasons whatsoever and without even permitting the investigating agency to further investigate into the allegations of the cognizable offence is otherwise unsustainable. It has affected the right of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences. While passing such a blanket order, the High Court has not indicated any reasons." In wake of the preceding discussion the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. The interim order granted on 18.09.2025 is vacated. The investigations shall be personally monitored by the Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone on a regular basis. 4 CRLP No. 20555 of 2025 At this stage, Shri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other accused persons have been granted interim protection by this Court on the strength of the interim order passed in the instant writ petition. Faced with this learned AGA submits that the State shall file stay vacation application for vacation of the aforesaid interim orders granted to the other accused persons and for ensuring expeditious hearing of the said writ petitions. October 14, 2025 Dhananjai (Mrs. Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.) DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad