Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM NARAIN YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Narain Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14714 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15885 (21 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14714 of 2007

Ram Narain Yadav v. State of U.P. & others.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble V.D. Chaturvedi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents.

It is vehemently contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are based on mere probability and apprehension and if taken at the face value and accepted in its entirety, do not constitute commission of cognizable offence. It is submitted that in respect of the selection in question a full-fledged inquiry was made and during the course of inquiry no evidence or material was found against the petitioner with in the alleged irregularities alleged to have been committed in the process of selection. It is submitted that the selection in question was challenged in Writ Petition No.2809 (S/S) of 2005 and other connected writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Single Judge found that the allegation of arbitrariness, favoritism and nepotism has not been proved and thus, the prayer for quashing of the selection or for conducting CBI inquiry was not entertained and all the writ petitions were dismissed and no special appeal was preferred against the aforesaid judgment, therefore, it became final. It is further argued that the petitioner is a high ranking police officer and he has already been suspended and a departmental proceeding is also under contemplation. It is also submitted that the petitioner is no more member of the selection board and, therefore, in the absence of there being any chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence it is not necessary that he should be arrested during the investigation. It is urged that in the circumstances lodging of FIR is gross abuse of power and, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that protection may be extended to the petitioner. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Jogendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1994 (4) SCC 260 and State of Haryana and others v. Chowdhry Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and submitted that for the ends of justice it is expedient that the arrest of the petitioner may be stayed.

On the other hand, Shri Arvind Tripathi, learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents opposed the prayer. He argued at length but despite repeated query of this Court could not place any material showing direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. However, he prays for and is allowed ten days' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within four days thereafter.

Issue notice to respondent no.5 through registered post with AD returnable within four weeks. Steps to be taken within a week.

As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, list the writ petition on 11th October, 2007.

Considering the submissions made before us and looking to the fact of the case and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is a government servant and is already under suspension and there is hardly any chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence, we are inclined to pass the interim order. We, therefore, provide that, in the meanwhile, the investigation shall continue and the same may be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months but the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with case crime no.616 of 2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B & 34 IPC and Sections 7, 12 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi until submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. or until further order of this Court, whichever is earlier, provided he co-operates in the investigation and appears before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

21.9.2007

A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.