Uttarakhand High Court
Gurjeet Singh Alias Gurjant vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 451 of 2023
Gurjeet Singh alias Gurjant ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.4.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 631 of
2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 13.10.2022, at 8:30 in
the morning, when Mahal Singh was sitting outside his
house, reading newspaper, suddenly, two motorcycle borne
miscreants came and opened indiscriminate fire, due to
which he died at the spot. By the time, the informant and
others reached at the place of incident, the miscreants ran
away. The FIR also records that some 6 to 7 days prior to the
incident, a person Harjeet Singh @ Kala had called from
Canada and was demanding money. Suspicion was raised
on Harjeet Singh @ Kala. It also records that the incident
has been recorded in the CCTV.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that in the instant matter, charge sheet has already been
submitted against some persons, but the Investigating
Officer ("IO") has recorded that investigation was still
pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel would raise
following points in his submission:-
(i) The arrest could be effected only if there are
cogent material and reasonable
apprehension to do so.
(ii) The petitioner has been falsely implicated,
merely on the basis that he has been
assisting his brother' legal defence, who is
an accused in the case.
(iii) The petitioner has been doing pairokari of
his brother.
(iv) The remand magistrate should see as to
whether arrest has been properly done or
not.
(v) Before charge sheet was submitted one of
the charge-sheeted accused had revealed it
to the IO, that when he was discussing the
matter with another co-accused, it was over
heard by the petitioner. It is submitted that
it is the prosecution case that the petitioner
ought to have informed the police as to what
was being discussed by those two persons,
who have been charge-sheeted. Learned
counsel would submit that it does not make
the applicant a conspirator.
5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit
that the incident has been captured in the CCTV. He also
submits that it is the applicant who has harboured the
accused.
6. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission
of offence, generally no interference is warranted.
7. Undoubtedly, the power of arrest is one thing and
justification of arrest is quite distinct. There are statutory
provisions, as contained under Sections 41 and 41 A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which guide the IO in the
matter of arrest. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid
down the guidelines in a catena of judgments with regard
to the arrest. The Court need not to go deep into that aspect
of the matter.
8. It is also true that at the time of remand scrutiny
of arrest is done. In fact, it is first judicial scrutiny of the
arrest. What was told by the charge sheet accused to the IO
cannot fall for scrutiny at this stage.
9. This Court has no doubt that while conducting
investigation, the IO would definitely follow statutory
provisions and guidelines, laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. As also, this Court need not remind the
remand magistrate of their duties.
10. FIR in the instant case discloses commission of
offence. In fact, it is a very heinous offence. The FIR records
that the incident has been recorded in the CCTV. It is
admitted that the charge sheet has been submitted against
some of the persons. The investigation is pending against
the petitioner.
11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
13.04.2023
Jitendra
