Surendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P.

Supplementary affidavit filed be taken on record.

Heard S/Sri R.K. Gautam and P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record produced before us.

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of victim Manju was solemnized with Pushpendra Singh, the son of the petitioner. It is alleged that there was demand of dowry and torture to her and in this continuation it is alleged that on 22.2.2005 the petition t along with co-accused caused her bum injury by sprinkling kerosene oil. Relating to the occurrence, a case as case crime No. 25 of 2005 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 IPC is registered at police station Narkhi, district Firozabad. The victim appeared to have died and Section 304B IPC has been added therein.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a junior commissioned officer in Indian Army and is posted in 268 Medium Regiment, Dharamdhara, District His younger son Sunil Kumar Singh was suffering from Kidney trouble. The wife of the petitioner Smt. Rambeti and the petitioner donated their kidneys to him and during this process they were also admitted in the hospital in the years 2003-2004 at Delhi and in support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was on duty on 22.2.2005 at Gujrat, as is evidently clear from Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition / the certificate issued by the Lieutenant Colonel. It was not possible for him to be present in district Firozabad at the relevant time. His further contention is that the petitioner and his family members were disturbed due to the illness of his above-named son and were busy in the treatment. There was no occasion for them to indulge in the alleged offence.

Particularly, when the first information report was lodged the next day and no one has been shown to have witnessed the occurrence coupled with the fact that the Investigating Officer found the involvement of Km. Anshu (the co-accused and the daughter of the petitioner) false in the alleged offence. His contention is that the person whose involvement has been shown in the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigating officer or the police is at liberty to make his arrest, but as the petitioner has raised a convincing ground of his non-presence / non-participation in the alleged offence, the responsible military officer has issued the certificate referred-to-above. It may be proper that the truthfulness of the same be worked out before effecting the arrest of the petitioner. In this regard, the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, is very relevant to be quoted below :

No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person''s complicity and event so as to the need to effect arrest.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view to hold in the interest of justice and equity both that the investigating officer in the aforesaid case crime number shall also enquire the above contention of the petitioner to work out the truth so far as it relates to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order and till then the arrest of the petitioner Surendra Pal Singh S/o Sri Tursan Pal Singh shall not be effected in case crime No. 25 of 2005 under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 IPC registered at police station Narkhi, district Firozabad, provided he cooperates with the investigation.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.