Bindeshwari Dubey vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

Notices on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 have have been accepted by Learned Government Advocate while on behalf of newly added respondent No. 6 notice has been accepted by Ms. Renu Tiwari, Advocate.

Issue notice to respondent No. 5, returnable at an early date. Let counter affidavit be filed by the respective respondents within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within next two weeks.

List thereafter, after exchange of the affidavits. Under challenge is FIR relating to case crime No. 675 of 2007, under Sections 279, 337 and 358 I.P.C. converted u/s 304 IPC, police station Payagpur, district Bahraich.

Submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the FIR, which was lodged by Mannu Tewari, no person has been named, rather it has been indicated that an information was given to one Girjesh Singh that an incident has taken place of an unknown person. Later on, after registration of the FIR, an application was moved by the respondent No. 6 Smt. Sunita Devi alleging therein that her husband succumbed to the injuries caused upon him by the persons named in the application and her husband Sushil Kumar was not killed as enumerated in the FIR by means of an accident, rather he has been killed by the petitioner and his associates as such further submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if the case would have been as stated by Smt. Sunita Devi then why FIR was not lodged by the persons accompanying her husband but was lodged by Mannu Tewari.

We have gone through the application moved by Smt. Sunita Devi respondent No. 6, a reference of which finds place in G.D. Entry No. 10, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

Let the things be as they are, we hereby direct that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid crime number until further orders of this Court or till submission of charge sheet, whichever is earlier, provided the petitioner cooperates with the investigation.