Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 102 (RAJ)

Yogendra Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-01-14

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. 2. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.48/2019-20 lodged at P.S. Excise (Rural) District Bikaner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the sale certificate issued by the competent Automobile Company which in favour of the present petitioner certifying that the petitioner has purchased new car in exchange of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown the delivery receipt, affidavit and other documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had purchased the new car in exchange of the car which was caught with the excise contraband. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the petitioner wants to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress the issue. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the petitioner submits a representation along with all the necessary documents before the concerned investigating authority within a period of fifteen days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, before completing the investigation. 6. In light of the aforesaid assurance given by learned Public Prosecutor, the present misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the petitioner submits a representation along with all the necessary documents before it within a period of fifteen days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided before completing the investigation, strictly in accordance with law and as per the assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection from arrest to the petitioner as it will be a waste of energy and resources of the Police Department to run after the accused to complete the related investigation and without protection it would also cause unnecessary hardship to the accused, who deserves a basic opportunity of explaining his case before the Investigating Authority without fear of arrest. The Investigating Officer, however, shall have the liberty of custodial interrogation after giving 15 days' notice before arrest if required. The Investigating Officer, however, shall have the liberty of custodial interrogation after giving 15 days' notice before arrest if required. In the interest of justice and the facts and circumstances noted by this Court, the limited protection is justified. Therefore, if during the investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to arrest the petitioner, then the petitioner shall be given 15 days' notice before making such arrest. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. 8. The stay petition also stands disposed of.