IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the necessity of justifying arrests and the limitations on police power to arrest, as well as the interpretation of injuries under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed for seeking the arrest of respondents no. 4 and 5 in F.I.R. No. 153 of 2021, registered at Police Station, P.S. Sadar, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 509 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, after the addition of an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

2. The petitioner informant made a statement to the police that on 06.09.2021, Maya Devi and Kanta Devi want to throw the cow dung in their fields. At about 11:30 a.m., when they crossed the house of Deep Chand, all of a sudden Deep Chand and Rohit attacked them with a Darat and a stick, respectively. The informant and other persons sustained injuries. The police registered the F.I.R. Injured were medically examined. The Medical Officer opined that Meera Devi had sustained simple injury; whereas Sunita Devi, Maya Devi and Kanta Devi had sustained grievous injuries. The police conducted the investigation. The police wanted to get the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., however, she did not appear in the Court to make her statement. An F.I.R. No. 152 of 2021 was also registered against the informant and other persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police arrested Deep Chand and Rohit and released them on bail. A charge sheet was filed against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 509, and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police obtained the opinion from the Medical Officer of Dr Rajendra Prasad Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Tanda, District Kangra, H.P. As per the Medical Officer, the injury was grievous and the possibility of endangering the life could not be ruled out. The police added Section 307 of IPC after the receipt of the report of the Medical Officer and filed a supplementary charge sheet against the accused.

3. The petitioner filed the present petition seeking the direction to arrest respondents no. 4 and 5. It was asserted that the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is non-bailable. Respondents no. 4 and 5 misused their liberty. The police are also not taking steps for their arrest. Hence, it was prayed that directions be issued to arrest respondents no. 4 and 5.

4. In the present case notice was confined to respondent No.1-State only.

5. I have heard Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Ms. Deepmala Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent no.1-State.

6. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC 280, Hamida vs. Rashid alias Rasheed & others (2008) 1 SCC 474 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2014 (8) SCC 273 to submit that the police needed to arrest respondents No. 4 and 5 after filing supplementary charge sheet for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The police failed to do so. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and a direction be issued to the police to arrest respondents no. 4 and 5.

7. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no.1/State submitted that the charge sheet has been filed before the Court and the police do not have any power to arrest any person. The remedy of the petitioner lies in approaching the learned Trial Court for the arrest of respondents no. 4 and 5. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

9. The police have added Section 307 of IPC based on the opinion of the Medical Board that in the case of patient Kanta Devi, the possibility of injury endangering life could not be ruled out.

10. It was laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Atma Singh vs. State of Punjab