AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State Public Prosecutor-I for the respondent-State.
This petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner is arrested without furnishing the grounds of arrest.
Learned State Public Prosecutor-I would submit that the grounds of arrest have been furnished and would invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-E (page No.30) wherein, in column number 10, the reasons for arresting the petitioner have been spelt out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this document was not furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had to apply for the certified copy of the document in Court, as such, the contention of the State that the grounds of arrest have been furnished cannot be accepted.
Apparently, it is noticed that there is no signature of the petitioner on the checklist which is said to have been furnished by the State. It is also noticed that the offence alleged is under Section 307.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that weapon is not used in the time of commission of alleged offence.
Learned State Public Prosecutor-I would submit that it is a case of grievous injury.
Anyway the Court is not considering the nature of the injury in this matter. The Court is only considering whether the grounds of arrest have been furnished and prima facie it is apparent that the grounds of arrest have not been furnished by petitioner as required under law.
Under the circumstances the petition is allowed on the sole ground that the grounds of arrest have not been furnished.
This order will not come in the way of respondent-State taking further action as advised in law.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Respondent No.2 shall release the petitioner. The intimation shall be sent to the jail authority.