1. An FIR was registered against the petitioner on 04.06.2016 under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner thereafter applied for the copy of the FIR through his representative Advocate after payment of challan on 13.06.2016 as per Annexure P-2 and it is stated that requisition was made to challenge the registration of FIR. It is contended that neither the said application was allowed nor was refused but was shelved as such there was a deemed refusal though the copy of FIR is alleged to have been sent to the Magistrate. Thereafter when the application was made to the Magistrate, only the photocopy of FIR was given without any authenticity of the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said deemed refusal of the “certified copy” by the police authorities or the concerned Court violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India as it infringed the right to defend the petitioner for the alleged offence. He placed his reliance in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 07.09.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2016. It is vehemently submitted that in the face of the direction issued by the Supreme Court, if it has not been followed, then it would be a gross violation and contempt of the order of the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the respondent be directed to supply the certified copy of the FIR forthwith as per application dated 13.06.2016.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the same and would submit that the copy of the FIR having been sent to the Magistrate under Section 157(1) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner could avail the copy of the same from the concerned Court and it is not necessary on the part of the police authorities to supply the copy of the FIR; therefore, the petition be dismissed being without any merit.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association vs. Union of India & Others.

5. Their Lordships in that case while issuing different directions, considered Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right of liberty. Reference was made to the case of State of West Bengal & Others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571. The recent judgment reiterates the earlier view expressed by the Supreme Court that Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal liberties except according to the procedure established by law. It was further fortified that the said Article in its broad application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but also the rights of the victim and the State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of commission of a congnizable offence, which may include its own officers. In certain situations even a witness to the crime may seek for and shall be granted protection by the State.

6. Further the Supreme Court while considering the case reiterated the law laid down in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 and it was observed that the citizen cannot be expected to shed off his fundamental right to life to be put in abeyance on his arrest. The right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicted under-trials, detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

7. Considering the various aspects in case of Youth Bar Association of India (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down the following observation and the relevant part of it reproduced as under:

“12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to record the requisite conclusions