Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 367 (UTT)

Lomesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-10

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Where as it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Lomesh Kumar that he has regularly been appearing before the Investigating Officer, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed a copy of the report submitted by Inspector Incharge Kotwali, Roorkee, Haridwar, to say that accused Lomesh Kumar has not been appearing before the Investigating Officer. Inspector Incharge Kotwali, Roorkee, Hardiwar has stated in such report that accused Lomesh Kumar is not cooperating in the investigation. 2. Thus, on the one hand, there is statement of Lomesh Kumar, who is present in person before the Court, saying that he has been contacting the Investigating Officer, the Inspector Incharge Kotwali, Roorkee, on the other hand, says that the accused is not cooperating in the investigation, despite notice. 3. In such a situation, stay vacation application, as also WPCRL No. 663 of 2014, is disposed of by directing that the petitioner Lomesh Kumar shall be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that he has committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer shall satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr. P.C. In other words, the petitioner shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 Cr. P.C. are satisfied. 4. So far as the co-accused Vinit Kumar Tomar is concerned, he is the main accused, as per report dated 9.9.2014 of Inspector Incharge Kotwali, Roorkee, Haridwar. He has not been cooperating with the Investigating Agency, despite notice on him. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the police is annoyed with Vinit Kumar Tomar, inasmuch as, his father has filed a complaint against the police officers before National Human Rights Commission. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the applicant is wanted in a criminal case under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 56 & 120B IPC, is the main accused and is not cooperating with the investigation. 5. Considering the nature of allegations leveled against him, this Court does not consider it fit to grant him interim protection from arrest. 6. 5. Considering the nature of allegations leveled against him, this Court does not consider it fit to grant him interim protection from arrest. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (Vinit Kumar Tomar) prayed that the Court below be directed to decide his bail application at an early date. Such innocuous prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is worth accepting. It is provided that the petitioner shall surrender before learned Magistrate at Roorkee, within a week from today, whereafter he will be dealt with by the Magistrate concerned according to law. 7. It is provided that if he surrenders before the learned Magistrate within a week and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay. 8. Criminal writ petition filed on behalf of Vinit Kumar Tomar thus stands disposed of. 9. So far as another co-accused Bhagmal Singh is concerned, it is provided that the interim order granted to him shall continue till the next date of listing. 10. It is expected that the investigation against all the petitioners/accused persons shall be completed without unnecessary delay, as is stipulated in Sub-Section (1) of Section 173 Cr. P.C.