( 1 )

ISSUES BEFORE THE FULL BENCH ;-A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22-8-2000, referred two questions to a larger Bench for determination/answer, namely; (1) Whether arrest during mvestigation can be stayed by this Court only fn rarest of rare cases as observed in Satyapal v. Slate of U. P. and. Ors, 2000 Cri LJ 569 : (1999 All lj 2660), or according to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder kumar v. State of U. P. and Ors. (19s4) 4 SCC 260 : (AIR 1994 SC 1349) ? (2) Whether the Full Bench in Satyapals case was right in holding that Joginder kumars case was delivered on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and hence does not lay down any legal principles relating to the power of arrest and the power of stay to arrest by this Court?

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND contentions ON behalf OF THE PARTIES :-

( 2 ) THE petitioner Ajit Singh filed this writ petition for quashing the First information report dated 19/5/2000 (Annex, 1)registered as Case Crime No. 144 of 2000, under sections 323. 50-1. 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of The scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. 1989. police station Kuthan, District jaunpur. When the matter came up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the division Bench that the F. I. R. had been filed at a belated stage on 19/5/2000 in respect of the incident alleged to have occurred on 24/3/2000 and the petitioner apprehended the arrest by the investigating agency at the behest of respondent No. 3 Hansraj, the complainant. Stay of arrest was prayed contending that the arrest was likely to be made in contravention of the law laid down by the honble Apex Court in Joginder Kumars ease wherein it has been held that the arrest should not be made in every case in routine and it may be made only where there is a justification for making the arrest and necessary in the facts and circumstances of that case. The contention was opposed by the learned Government Advocate placing reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Satyapals case wherein it has been held that arrest should be stayed only in rarest of rare cases and not as a matter of routine, observing that the Honble Apex court decided the case Joginder Kumars case on the facts of that case and it does not lay down the law for universal applicationtion. The Division Bench was of the opinion that, the Full Bench had made observations in contravention of the law laid down by the honble Apex Court which was not permissible in view of the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, referred the aforesaid two questions to the larger Bench,

( 3 ) WE have heard Shri Ramender asthana, Shri S. P. Shukla and Shri Prem prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. S. Mishra, learned Government advocate for the State.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner have submitted that the judgment of the Full bench in Satyapals case does not lay down the correct law that this Court should stay arrest only in rarest of rare cases as it is in contravention of the law laid down by the honble Apex Court in Joginder Kumars case (AIR 1994 SC 1349) and as the law laid down by the Honble Court is binding on all courts in view of the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it was not permissible for the Full Bench to say that the guidelines Issued in Joginder Kumars case need to be confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, which were distinguishable from the facts of the case before the Full Bench. As the arrest may destroy the reputation of a person and it brings humiliation, it is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court, being the custodian of law, has a solemn duty to protect the rights of the persons.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, Shri V. S. Mishra, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in satyapals c