JUDGMENT By the Court—Heard Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Nipun Saini for the petitioner, the learned A.G.A., Shri Anil Malik and Mohd. Afzal advocates for the respondent No. 4. 2. Both Shri Anil Malik and Shri Mohd. Afzal have stated in Court that they do not wish to file any counter affidavit and the Court may proceed to decide the writ petition itself. This petition challenges a First Information Report dated 15.6.2006 lodged as Case Crime No. 171 of 2006 under Section 302, I.P.C. at Police Station, Sadar Bazar in Meerut. 3. It is alleged in the petition and which facts have not been denied by filing any counter affidavit that the petitioner, Dr. Atul Krishna is the President of Subharati K.K.B. Charitable Trust and the Trust runs a Medical College of the same name since 2000 and also Dental College since 1997, Physiotherapy College, Engineering College, Nursing College, Law College, B.Ed. College and large number of Primary Institutions on charitable basis. The petitioner himself is a qualified Doctor holding a Master’s Degree and apart from teaching students in the Medical College also performs surgeries in the Medical College free of charge and is engaged in social activities in Meerut. The Trust substantially is private in nature as his wife, brother and other family members are its trustees. 4. One Shri Hari Om Anand was also one of the trustees and due to various reasons including of dishonesty he was removed in a meeting of the Trust on 7-5.2005. 5. Later it was also found that Shri Nirmal Sharma (Deceased) who was working as Accounts Manager of the Trust has misappropriated the records and joined hands with the aforesaid Hari Om Anand, he was also removed. An attempt was made to lodge First Information Report against the aforesaid two persons but when the police refused they preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but upon a report of the police filed in favour of the aforesaid two persons a protest petition was filed by the petitioner where a further direction was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.5.2006 for reinvestigation of the complaint. 6. 6. The aforesaid Nirmal Sharma was killed on 14.6.2006 and in the First Information Report lodged of the said incident, it is mentioned that three unknown persons came in a Toyota Qualis vehicle who shoot Shri Sharma and the informant allegedly showed a fourth person whose feature resembled that of the petitioner Dr. Atul Krishna sitting in the vehicle. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the night at about 9:15 p.m. From the facts noted above, it is apparent that the first informant, who is a family member of the deceased, very well known the petitioner, Dr. Atul Krishna but he could not make an affirmative statement that it was the petitioner himself who was allegedly sitting in the vehicle. 7. From the First Information Report, it is also evident no overt action is attributed to him. These facts together with statements of police officers as reflected in daily newspapers, though cast a mere suspicious but that does not appear to be any evidence to connect the petitioner with the incident. In the statement given to the police Dr. Krishna stated that at the relevant time he was in a meeting with Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mawana in his house and which fact is also corroborated by the statement of the S.D.M., Shri R.D. Ram. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ALJ 206, was also confronted with an impeachable alibi and after relying upon the ratio of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 Cri. LJ 1981, which was to the following effect : “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and event so as to the need to effect arrest.” Restrained the arrest of the alleged accused. 8. Considering the entire facts especially when they are not denied, it appears appropriate that the petitioner may not be arrested in Case Crime No. 171 of 2006 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station, Sadar Bazar, District Meerut till submission of the police report, nevertheless the petitioner would cooperate in the investigations which shall go on. However, the petitioner shall not leave the city of Meerut without obtaining permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut or whoever is discharging his functions and he will also surrender his passport with the said Authority within a week from today alongwith a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed off. Order Accordingly. ———