Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Arunabha Basu And Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, JJ.
RAMESH SHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
C. R. M. 9596 Of 2007
Decided On : 09/25/2007
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - REGISTRATION OF TWO FIRS OVER SAME OCCURRENCE - VALIDITY - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 41 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION - POWER OF POLICE OFFICER TO ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT - CONDITIONS - PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - ROLE OF POLICE OFFICER - LEGAL FRAMEWORK.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, drivers of a vehicle carrying furnace oil, were arrested and released on bail in connection with a General Diary Entry (GDE) for alleged involvement in offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered based on a written complaint by the officer-in-charge of the police station, alleging similar offenses. The petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the GDE dated August 26, 2007, which contained a specific recital of the commission of a cognizable offense and the petitioners' involvement, was the first information report (FIR) within the meaning of Section 154 of the CrPC. The subsequent registration of the FIR dated August 30, 2007, based on the same occurrence and involving the same offenses, was not permissible under law and amounted to the registration of a second FIR.
Issues: 1. Whether the GDE dated August 26, 2007, constituted the first information report (FIR) in the case. 2. Whether the subsequent registration of the FIR dated August 30, 2007, was valid in light of the existing FIR. 3. Applicability and scope of Section 41 of the CrPC in the context of arrest without a warrant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala to establish that the first information report (FIR) is the first information given to the police about the commission of a cognizable offense, and that the GDE dated August 26, 2007, satisfied this requirement. 2. The court held that the subsequent registration of the FIR dated August 30, 2007, was not permissible under law as it amounted to the registration of a second FIR over the same occurrence and involving the same offenses, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi. 3. The court clarified that Section 41 of the CrPC, which empowers police officers to arrest without a warrant, does not relate to any specific offense but recognizes the grounds on which such arrests can be made. The court emphasized that this power should not be exercised mechanically.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail, holding that it was misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court reasoned that the petitioners were already arrested and released on bail in connection with the same offense, and that the subsequent registration of the FIR did not provide a valid ground for entertaining an application under Section 438 of the CrPC.
( 1 ) THE petitioners Ramesh Sha and Biru Prosad have filed application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Bhadreswar P. S. Case No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007 under Section 379/411/413/414/468/472/420/109/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are the driver and the khalasi of the vehicle, bearing No. WB 25/8959. They were arrested and forwarded before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chandannagore in connection with Bhadreswar P. S. General Diary Entry no. 1586 and 1597, both dated August 26, 2007, corresponding to NGR 1397/2007 and subsequently, released on bail on August 27, 2007.
( 3 ) IN the application, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that both the cases bearing NGR No. 1397/2007 and Bhadreswar P. S. Case no. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2)307 were registered over identical occurrence.
( 4 ) THE petitioners apprehend that they will be arrested in connection with Bhadreswar P. S. Case No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007, even though they are on bail in connection with the earlier case bearing NGR no. 1397/2007.
( 5 ) IN view of the apprehension of the petitioners that they may be arrested in connection with Bhadreswar P. S. Case No. 196/2007 dated august 30, 2007, they have moved this Court seeking an order of anticipatory bail in terms of provisions as prescribed under Section 438 of the Code of criminal Procedure.
( 6 ) AFTER hearing the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and learned Advocate for the State. We directed learned Public Prosecutor to cause production of General Diary Book of bhadreswar Police Station, containing relevant entries, bearing Nos. 1586 and 1597 both dated August 26, 2007. We have, also, perused the case diary in connection with F. I. R. No. 196/2007 and the documents filed along with the application under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
( 7 ) THE petitioners were initially arrested in connection with bhadreswar P. S. General Diary Entry No. 1586 and 1597 both dated August 26, 2007 for their alleged involvement in connection with offence punishable under Sections 379/411/413/414/468/472/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It, further, appears that Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also inserted in the forwarding report and also in the General Diary Entry bearing No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 along with other provisions of the indian Penal Code as mentioned above.
( 8 ) IT appears from Annexure-A to the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that learned Magistrate by his order dated August 27, 2007 granted bail to both the petitioners. In the same order learned Magistrate considered the prayer submitted by Police Officer to conduct inquiry and permitted the same directing Police to inquire and submit P/r (Prosecution Report ).
( 9 ) ON perusal of the case diary, we find that written First Information report was lodged by S. I. , Sukamal Kanti Das, Officer-in-charge, bhadreswar P. S. on August 30, 2007 against four persons including the petitioners. On the basis of such First Information Report dated August 30, 2007, a case being First Information Report No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007 was registered under Sections 379/411/413/414/468/471/420/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 10 ) ON perusal of relevant General Diary Entry bearing No. 1597 dated august 26, 2007 and the First Information Report in connection with bhadreswar P. S. Case No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007, we find that the offence being investigated by the Police as disclosed in the General diary Entry dated August 26, 2007 and the First Information Report dated august 30, 2007 are identical.
( 11 ) ON careful examination of the entries in General Diary Entry No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
