Court No. - 25 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 495 of 2010 Petitioner :- Samad S/O Abdul Rahman & Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Md. Fahim Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Abdul Mateen,J.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government
Advocate, who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties.
Under challenge is F.I.R. relating to Case Crime No.65 of 2006 under
Sections 147,332,435,341 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police
Station Malihabad district Lucknow.
We have gone through the F.I.R. and documents annexed thereto.As it comes
out that in the present FIR eleven persons have been shown as accused.
During the course of investigation, since no evidence was found against the
petitioners, as such, final report was submitted against them, but on the
direction of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow vide order dated
4.8.2008 the matter is being further investigated.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that although charge
sheet was submitted against certain persons, who were found to have
committed aforesaid crime but since nothing was found against the
petitioners , but for the namesake of the further investigation, there is every
likelihood that the petitioners may be roped in the aforesaid crime.
Let the things be as they are, in the aforesaid circumstances we dispose of the
writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the
aforesaid case crime number unless and until cogent and reliable evidence
comes forward against them, which turns in the shape of report under Sections
173 Cr.P.C., provided they cooperate with the investigation, which shall go
on.
Date :- 22.1.2010
Tripathi