Giving relief to two accused in the case of the attack on BJP MP Sangam Lal Gupta and BJP workers, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has ordered that the arrest should be made only if strong evidence is found against the petitioners.
The Division Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saroj Yadav passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Chandra Shekhar Singh & Anr.
It has been contended by the counsel for petitioners that it is a case where in respect of the same incident multiple FIRs have been lodged against the petitioners for political reasons and with malafide intentions so as to ensure that petitioners are harassed. Submission thus, is that subsequent FIRs other than the first one may be quashed.
On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that the incident had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sangipur, District Pratapgarh, however, all the six FIRs have been lodged at Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.
He has further stated that in terms of the circular issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh on April 26, 2016, it is the first FIR which shall be investigated and rest of the FIRs are to be treated as statements under Sections 161/162 Cr.P.C.
The AGA, on the basis of instructions, has submitted that the FIR lodged at Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh has been transferred to the Police Station Sangipur in the same district and has been renumbered as FIR. He has further stated that the FIRs bearing have been decided to be treated as statements under Sections 161/162 Cr.P.C while FIR is to be investigated.
He has also stated that so far as other FIRs are concerned, they are also now to be treated as statements under Sections 161/162 Cr.P.C. in the leading FIR, presently transferred to the Police Station Sangipur, District Pratapgarh.
The Court noted that the question of quashing the subsequent FIRs excluding the FIR, Police Station Sangipur, District Pratapgarh does not arise at all and to that extent, the counsel for petitioners does not dispute the legal position. The Court further noted that the counsel for petitioners has stated that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case so far as the averments made in the FIR, earlier lodged at Police Station Lalganj and now transferred to Police Station Sangipur having been renumbered as FIR are concerned, no case against the petitioners is made out for the reason that in respect of same incident the version given by the complainant in the FIR is at variance with the version of the same incident disclosed in others.
The counsel for petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to the FIR bearing which recites that the Station House Officer, Police Station Sangipur made an attempt to save the complainant of the said FIR and further submitted that the FIR has been lodged by this very Station House Officer, namely, Tushar Dutt Tyagi, who is the complainant of the FIR where no such allegation is present.
It has been stated that the impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intentions and because of the political rivalry, as is apparent from the recitals made in the multiple FIRs relating to the alleged incident which is said to have occurred on the occasion of some function on which two parties had gathered on the spot.
“When we examine the submissions made by counsel for petitioners, what we find is that the presence of the Station House Officer, Police Station Sangipur, who is the complainant in FIR, has been recited in the FIR, however, both these complainants give different versions of the same incident. The background in which the incident is said to have taken place also assumes importance in this case as there appears to be some feud between two rival political parties which appears to have given rise to the incident,” the Court observed.
However, all these aspects are issues of fact which are to be investigated by the Investigating Agency during the course of the investigation, the Court said.
“In the view of the matter, we, as an interim measure, provide that investigation of the matter shall be conducted by the Investigating Officer in an absolutely clean, impartial, unbiased and fair manner. We further provide that the petitioners shall not be arrested unless some credible and cogent material/evidence surfaces during the course of investigation being conducted by the Investigating Officer, pointing out their complicity in the alleged crime,” the Court ordered.
The Court specifically directed that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and they shall present themselves as and when they are required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation purposes as also for any other purposes relating to investigation such as discovery of incriminating objects etc.