The Allahabad High Court while disposing the petition said that it is mandatory for the police investigation officer to inform and record the reasons for his arrest while arresting the person wanted in any crime.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Smt Rajkumari.
The petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 1.4.2023 being Case under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodity Act, 1955 P.S Thathiya, District Kannauj and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
The submission is 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 CrPC. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of the Court dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc Writ Petition (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.
The Court said 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, (2014) 8 SCC 273. 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 (Ref. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1.
This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of noncompliance with Section 41 shall certainly insure 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 (supra).
“We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by this Court in the above noted judgement are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition in view of the judgments cited above.