The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia in the case of Rajkumari vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others has expounded that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the FIR lodged against the petitioner and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
Submission of the Petitioner
The counsel on the behalf of the petitioner has submitted that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. The Counsel has also paid reliance on the case of Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others) in which guidelines have been framed following the judgement of the Apex Court in different cases, relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court considered the submission of the petitioner and observed that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised through the repetitive pronouncements of the Apex Court, which is on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court further expounded that “the consequence of noncompliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. The same has been elaborately dealt with in paragraphs 7.1 to 12 of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case.”
Therefore, the Court perused the Articles of the Constitution and held that the guidelines framed by this Court in the above noted judgement are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case and disposed of the petition.
Case Details
Case:- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7496 of 2023
Petitioner - Smt. Rajkumari
Respondent - State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Judge: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia
Picture Source :
