Aliasher vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR No. 279 of 2020 under Sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station Jhabreda, District Haridwar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

According to the FIR, on 22.07.2020, Police, upon information having been received, raided a place and recovered 80 kg beef. There were seven persons, out of which four were arrested, but, three managed to escape, one of them is the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would simply argue that petition of co-accused Zaheer has been decided by the Court on 14.08.2020 and directions have been issued, accordingly, the petition may be decided.

In fact, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1248 of 2020 was filed by co-accused Zaheer in the case and request was made that his bail application may be decided on the same day when it is filed.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The FIR discloses commission of offences. It also discloses the name of the petitioner, although, it is revealed by the co-accused, as per the FIR, the petitioner managed to escape when Police raided, therefore, there are no reasons to quash the petition.

On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that the directions may be issued that he may not be arrested in routine and mechanical manner.

Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arresting. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant case.

The petition stands disposed of.