Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Singh Chufal v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 5145 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3310 (21 September 2005)


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).


Hon'ble S.S. Kulshreshtha, J.

Hon'ble K. N. Ojha, J.

Heard and also perused the materials on the record.

It is said that specific explanation was given by the petitioner that he was employed in different office and the concerned official of the concerned department being over burdened sought his assistance for making formal entry to the fact "sanctioned vide order of the District Magistrate dated ..................." Had there been any malafide design on his part he would have mentioned the date of the order of the District Magistrate. This itself shows that the other official sought his assistance to have formal entry in the matter and as and when final orders are received from the District Magistrate the entry be made in the relevant column left blank.

Having regards the facts and circumstances of the case the arrest of the petitioner for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. registered at case Crime No. 2751 of 2004, police station Kotwali, district Bareilly, shall remain stayed till submission of report with the following conditions:

1. The petitioner will not be arrested in respect of the said crime number during the pendency of the investigation provided he cooperates with the investigation.

2. This stay or arrest will operate only if certified copy of this order along with one self-attested copy of the writ petition is served upon the investigating officer within fifteen days from today.

3. The stay of arrest will cease to operate if it is decided to submit a charge sheet after investigation.

4. Because the complainant has not been heard at this stage, therefore, it will be open to the complainant, or the investigating officer who has not been given opportunity to file a counter affidavit or any other party aggrieved to apply in this writ petition for recall/ modification of this order, if any misstatement is found in the material facts stated in the writ petition or other legally valid ground, which may be available to the party so applying.

5. The investigating officer will make all possible efforts to conclude the investigation within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is served upon him.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Dt/- 21.9.2005

Pcl (5145/05)


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


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 |

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