Uttarakhand High Court
Arjun vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 November, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1545 of 2023
Arjun ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.257 of
2023, under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station
Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, with related reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 28.04.2023, police
recovered narcotic substances in commercial quantity from
co-accused Salman. At the time of arresting, co-accused,
Salman, revealed it to the police that 5-6 months prior to the
date of recovery, he had brought those narcotic substances
from the petitioner, who runs a chemist shop.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that, prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner;
merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the
petitioner has been named in the FIR; the petitioner was in
Central Jail, Haryana, from 10.10.2022 to 29.08.2023. He
was in Jail much before the alleged recovery that was made
from co-accused Salman.
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. Plea of alibi cannot be examined by this Court. It
requires leading of evidence. It requires collection of evidence
during investigation as well. In any case, it falls for scrutiny
during investigation or trial, as the case may be.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the
investigation, but he apprehends his arrest.
8. If a person, like the petitioner, claims that he
had been in custody for a long and much prior to the date of
alleged recovery, as happened in the instant case, it falls
heavily on the Investigation Officer to verify the assertions
that are made by a person like the petitioner. It is further
much obligatory on the part of the Investigation Officer to
minutely examine the record and verify the statement of co-
accused, who says that he had purchased the narcotic
substances from the petitioner, because from the month of
April, 2023, if 5 and 6 months are counted, it falls in the
month of November or December, 2022, but the petitioner
claims that he was in custody from 10.10.2022 in Central
Jail, Haryana. But this Court cannot record any conclusion in
these proceedings.
9. Allegedly, the recovery was made from the co-
accused. He has stated that he purchased the narcotic
substances from the petitioner. It would fall for scrutiny
during investigation or trial, as the case may be. 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.
10. The petition is dismissed in limine.
11. However, the Investigation Officer, in the instant
case, shall definitely examine the plea of the petitioner that he
was in Central Jail, Haryana from 10.10.2022 to 29.08.2023.
Insofar as the apprehension of arrest is concerned, , it is not a
routine or mechanical exercise to be undertaken by the
Investigation Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain
the complicity of a person in the offence, and, thereafter, he
should further examine the necessity to arrest. There are
various statutory provisions as well as guidelines from the
Higher Courts, which, this Court has no doubt, the
Investigation Officer of the instant case shall definitely follow.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.11.2023
Ravi Bisht
