WPCRL/1034/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2583 UK

Office Notes, reports, orders or SL. proceedings or Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS No directions and Registrar's order with Signatures

WPCRL No. 1034 of 2021

Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J .

Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned counsel for the State.

Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.

This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR lodged against the petitioners, details whereof are given in the prayer clause.

Learned State Counsel would submit that petitioner no. 1 is the main accused and there are no serious allegations against petitioner no. 2.

As regards to petitioner no. 1, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his prayer only to the extent that the present criminal writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to file an anticipatory bail application before the Court below as per law.

Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty as mentioned hereinabove. Considering the fact, it is directed that if petitioner no. 1 moves the said application before the court below on or before 06.08.2021, till then only, no coercive measures shall be taken against petitioner no. 1, provided petitioner no. 1 cooperates in the investigation.

As regards to petitioner no. 2, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit the writ petition may be disposed of in the light of the Case Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

The writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties in respect of petitioner no. 2.

In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, 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. Petitioner no. 2 is directed to contact the Investigation Officer on or before 06.08.2021.

The prayer is not being objected to by the learned State Counsel.

Criminal writ petition is summarily disposed of with the direction as above and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties in respect of petitioner no. 2.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.)

24.07.2021 SB