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 Lakhan Maheshwari v. The State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. (Home Affairs) Lkw. & Ors. - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 9717 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3990 (4 October 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).


Court No. 2.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9717 of 2005

Ram Lakhan Maheshwari       Vs.        State of U.P. and others


Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.

Hon'ble G.P. Srivastava, J.  

The petitioner is involved in Case crime no. 156 of 2004, under section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Rath, District Hamirpur.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

Perused the allegations of F.I.R. and the material on record.  

In the case of Jogendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 (31) ACC 431 the Apex Court has observed as follows:

"A person is not liable to be arrested merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence.  There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified."

Prima facie on the allegations made and the averments in the writ petition there does not appear to be any necessity, at least at this stage, to effect the arrest.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

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

2. This stay of arrest will operate only if certified copy of this order alongwith 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.

Dated:  4.10.2005



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.