Arjun vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.257 of 2023, under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, with related reliefs.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 28.04.2023, police recovered narcotic substances in commercial quantity from co-accused Salman. At the time of arresting, co-accused, Salman, revealed it to the police that 5-6 months prior to the date of recovery, he had brought those narcotic substances from the petitioner, who runs a chemist shop.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner; merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the petitioner has been named in the FIR; the petitioner was in Central Jail, Haryana, from 10.10.2022 to 29.08.2023. He was in Jail much before the alleged recovery that was made from co-accused Salman.

It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

Plea of alibi cannot be examined by this Court. It requires leading of evidence. It requires collection of evidence during investigation as well. In any case, it falls for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, but he apprehends his arrest.

If a person, like the petitioner, claims that he had been in custody for a long and much prior to the date of alleged recovery, as happened in the instant case, it falls heavily on the Investigation Officer to verify the assertions that are made by a person like the petitioner. It is further much obligatory on the part of the Investigation Officer to minutely examine the record and verify the statement of co-accused, who says that he had purchased the narcotic substances from the petitioner, because from the month of April, 2023, if 5 and 6 months are counted, it falls in the month of November or December, 2022, but the petitioner claims that he was in custody from 10.10.2022 in Central Jail, Haryana. But this Court cannot record any conclusion in these proceedings.

Allegedly, the recovery was made from the co-accused. He has stated that he purchased the narcotic substances from the petitioner. It would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The petition is dismissed in limine.

However, the Investigation Officer, in the instant case, shall definitely examine the plea of the petitioner that he was in Central Jail, Haryana from 10.10.2022 to 29.08.2023. Insofar as the apprehension of arrest is concerned, , it is not a routine or mechanical exercise to be undertaken by the Investigation Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the offence, and, thereafter, he should further examine the necessity to arrest. There are various statutory provisions as well as guidelines from the Higher Courts, which, this Court has no doubt, the Investigation Officer of the instant case shall definitely follow.