Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 170 (UTT)

Kadam Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-03-08

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioned seek the following reliefs, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the FIR dated 14.12.2015, registered as case crime no. 494 of 2015, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of FIR dated 14.12.2015, registered as case crime no. 494 of 2015, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that in the gang-chart, five cases have been shown against the petitioner no.1 and four cases have been shown against the petitioner no.2. Learned counsel further submitted that in all the cases shown in the gang-chart, on the basis of which, the petitioners have been implicated under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the petitioners either have been granted bail by the different courts or have been acquitted. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have 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 petitioners 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. 5. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest, if any, of the petitioners. 6. In other words, the petitioners 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. 5. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest, if any, of the petitioners. 6. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 15.03.2017, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 7. When the investigation of the case will be conducted, it will either culminate into filing of the charge-sheet or submission of final report. This Court has no occasion to interfere in the investigation in between. 8. Therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.