Allahabad High Court
Gulab Kali And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 26 August, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth, Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148332-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17387 of 2025
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 28.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No.308 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 352, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Koraon, District- Yamuna Nagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj) and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
3. The main allegations are against petitioner no.1, that she has sold her property charged with the bank. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits petitioner nos.2 and 3 have been implicated for committing offences under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC. They have not fabricated any security or committed any offence of cheating etc., as alleged against petitioner no.1.
4. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with regard to petitioner no.1.
5. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner no.1 appears before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, his prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
6. However, in case, the petitioner no.1 does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
7. It is made clear that petitioner no.1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
8. So far as the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the following order is being passed:-
9. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner nos.2 and 3 is that petitioner nos.2 and 3 have been implicated for committing offences under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC. They have not fabricated any security or committed any offence of cheating etc., as alleged against petitioner no.1. The offences are punishable under 7 years or less than 7 years.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 has laid down guidelines for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:-
All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;
All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."
11. In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
12. Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to them as provided under Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. and summon the petitioner nos.2 and 3 in this case, petitioner nos.2 and 3 are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the investigation.
13. It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the petitioner nos.2 and 3, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the petitioner nos.2 and 3, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and MD. Asfak Alam (supra). It is also directed that the I.O. of the case shall gear up the investigation and conclude the same preferably within a period of 60 days from today and submit its report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the court of concerned Magistrate.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of with regard to petitioner nos.2 and 3.
August 26, 2025
RA
