Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Rajendra & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 August, 2010
Court No. - 46

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22901 of 2008

Petitioner :- Rajendra & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- H.P. Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.

Hon’ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA and
perused the record.

The arrest of the petitioners was stayed by an interim order passed in this writ
petition in respect of Case Crime No. 2156 of 2008, under Section 323, 504,
506, 452 I.P.C and 3(1) (10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Khorabar, district Gorakhpur
.The investigation had not been stayed. It is not known whether the
investigation has been completed yet or not.

In the case of Mahendra Lal Das v State of Bihar: 2002 SCC (Crl) 110, it has
been held by the Supreme Court that while interference by courts at
investigation stage is not called for, the investigating agency cannot be given
latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of
time.

No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending any
longer. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the following
directions:

1. The investigation will be completed within three months of the date on
which a certified copy of this order along with a self-attested copy of
this writ petition is presented before the investigating officer;

2. The petitioners will not be arrested during pendency and for the
purpose of investigation, provided a certified copy of this order is
presented before the police officer as directed above within 15 days
from today;

3. Two copies of the order shall also be presented within 15 days before
the S.S.P/S.P and CJM concerned who shall monitor the investigation
as provided by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.: AIR
2008 SC 907 and ensure that the investigation is completed within the
time stipulated by the High Court;

4. If copies of the order are not presented within the time aforesaid
before the Investigating officer, S.S.P./ S.P. and CJM, the stay of
arrest will not operate;

5. The accused will cooperate with the investigation and in case of non-
cooperation or otherwise if the investigating officer is of the opinion
that for any other valid reason the arrest of accused is necessary during
or for the purpose of investigation, it will be open to the investigating
officer to apply in this writ petition by means of a miscellaneous
giving details of non-cooperation as also details of what kind of
cooperation is expected by the accused for completing investigation or
why the arrest is otherwise necessary to that interim stay of arrest
granted hereby may be vacated;

6. In case the investigation is not completed within the aforesaid time of
three months, for some unavoidable reason or due to slackness on the
part of the investigating officer the CJM concerned shall inform this
Court, with the reason for the delay in concluding the investigation
within the time specified above. The Registrar General shall place the
information in pending where this Court inter alia is monitoring
matters with respect to writ petitions which have been disposed off
with directions for completing the investigation in three months.

7. If a report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is decided to be submitted to
the Court of Magistrate, in column no. 3 of the prescribed form of the
report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. it will be mentioned that the
accused have not been arrested on account of the stay order granted by
this Court and the Magistrate shall take expeditious steps for
appearance/ arrest of the accused;

8. If the accused appears before the Court concerned within 3 weeks of
the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and
applies for bail, the bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously
in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in
Amrawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004(57) ALR 290, affirmed
by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.:
2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC), and reiterated by the Division Bench of this
Court in Sheoraj Singh @ Chuttan v. State of U.P. & Others:
2009(65) ACC 781.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Order Date :- 4.8.2010
sfa/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.142 seconds.