AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 06.05.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 345 of
2018 under Section 379 411 IPC PS Kotwali Haridwar District Haridwar.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime No.
345 of 2018 under Section 379 411 IPC PS Kotwali Haridwar District Haridwar till the pendency of present petitionâ€. Â
On 06.05.2018, an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no. 3 at P.S. Kotwali Haridwar, alleging therein that on 06.05.2018 he was going to Khatoli
for personal work from his house. He sat in a bus at Haridwar Bus Station and kept his bag near the seat. As soon as the bus started plying, two
unknown persons flee away by taking away the bag of the complainant. Thereafter, with the assistance of public, one person has been caught, who
told his name as Irfan. During the search, purse of the complainant was recovered from the pocket of the Irfan. But, other person flew away
from the spot by taking the bag of the complainant. It is alleged that the said person Irfan told the name of another person as Lakha
(petitioner). Â
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime. She further submitted that
petitioner is not arrested on the spot and has been implicated on the basis of the co-accused.Â
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima
facie disclose commission of offence. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter. The Hon’ble
Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561, has held that if an offence is disclosed, Court will not
normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie,
discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of
the police to investigate into cognizable offences. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.Â
Stay Application (CLMA No. No. 6034 of 2018) stands rejected.Â
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then prayed that in case offence is made out against the petitioner, in that event, the petitioner will surrender
before the Court concerned and will move the bail application and the Court concerned may be directed to decide his bail application expeditiously.Â
In my view, every bail application should be considered and decided by the learned Court below without any unreasonable delay; but, needless to say
that it should be decided strictly in accordance with law. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that in case
petitioner surrenders and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court very very expeditiously, preferably on the same
day in accordance with law. Â