Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 791 (UTT)

Sokendra Pal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-07

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 15.05.2015, registered as case crime no. 117 of 2015, under Section 41/102 Cr.P.C. and Section 411 IPC, relating to P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with aforesaid case crime, till the pendency of the present writ petition. 2. When the writ petition was taken up for admission on 05.06.2015, interim relief was granted to the petitioner. Relevant portion of the order dated 05.06.2015, passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, is reproduced as under:- “…Meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is provided that though the investigation may go on against the petitioner, but petitioner shall not be arrested nor any coercive measures shall be taken against him till 16.06.2015 in pursuance of case crime no. 117 of 2015 under Sections 41 and 102 of Cr.P.C. and 411 of IPC, at police station Ranipur District Haridwar, subject to the cooperation of the petitioner with the investigating agency. Learned State counsel will ascertain as to the past conduct of the petitioner and as to whether he has any criminal history.” 3. Learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that no report has been received by him as to whether the petitioner has criminal history or not, the investigation of the case is under progress and it will take sometime to complete the same. He also submitted that interim order is already there in favour of the petitioner and the same is being obeyed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State proposed that the writ petition may be disposed of, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , inasmuch as the investigation is going on and, ultimately, it will culminate either into filing of the charge-sheet or submission of final report, whichever way the case may go, against the petitioner and this Court has no occasion to interfere with the investigation, therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. 5. 5. The criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) wherein it was held that the petitioner should 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 is required to 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. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. 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 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. 6. Writ petition thus stands disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the respondent State and in the absence of the petitioner, who is not represented by anyone, in the interest of justice.