Kawaljeet Singh @ Prince vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3323 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1496 of 2023
Kawaljeet Singh @ Prince                                 ....Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                        ....Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder for the State.

                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.197 of

2023, under Sections 8/15/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Pulbhatta,

District Udham Singh Nagar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 17.09.2023, the police

was on patrolling duty. They spotted three persons in a

Dhaba. When the police approached towards the Dhaba. A

person started running away. He was followed, but somehow

he could manage to escape from the place. The Police

Constables Ravi Kant Shukla and Gajendra Singh, who had

chased that person, later on told that he was the petitioner.

Two persons were apprehended, and poppy straw was

recovered from their possession.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that there is no evidence against the petitioner except the

statements of the co-accused, which is not admissible as

evidence. He would submit that the petitioner is ready and

willing to cooperate with the investigation; co-accused have

already been granted bail; the petitioner apprehends his

arrest.

5. 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 unless there

are compelling circumstances to do so.

6. It is true that statement of co-accused is a weak

kind of evidence, but, in the instant case, the FIR discloses

that the petitioner managed to escape from the place of

occurrence. He was chased by the police and two Police

Constables, according to the FIR, identified the petitioner.

Poppy straw was allegedly recovered from the Dhaba. It is

admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Dhaba. What

is the role of the petitioner? Whether he is involved in the

offence? And if so, to what extent? These are the questions,

which would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as

the case may be.

7. The FIR definitely discloses commission of

offences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no

reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition

deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

9. However, in so far as the apprehension of the

petitioner with regard to arrest is concerned, arrest is not a

routine and mechanical exercise to be carried out by the

Investigating Officer. There are guidelines and statutory

provisions before arrest is to be effected. This Court has no

doubt that the Investigating Officer of the case would also

follow all the statutory principles and guidelines that have

been laid by the Higher Courts, in case need for arrest arises.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.11.2023 Ravi Bisht