Vishanu And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 2824 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vishanu And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 February, 2024

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17698-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17183 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Vishanu And 5 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 03.10.2023, registered as Case Crime No.111 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Sambhal, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

3. The matter was taken up on 02.11.2023 and a coordinate Bench of this Court had proceeded to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre.

4. The Registrar (Mediation)/Incharge, AHCMCC has submitted a report on 25.01.2024 indicating therein that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.08.2023, the date was fixed but the parties are not willing for the mediation.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration.

6. However, as all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore, the investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised through the repetitive pronouncements of the Apex Court, which is on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Ref. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. The same has been elaborately dealt with in paragraphs 7.1 to 12 of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).

7. Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in view of the judgments in Arnesh Kuma (supra).

Order Date :- 1.2.2024

A. Pandey