Police must verify identity before arrest to prevent wrongful detention; failure violates personal liberty under Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of S.T. No. 300/2025 arising out of supplementary charge sheet no. 2, dated 02.08.2024 relating to case crime no. 0041/2024 dated 28.01.2024, lodged under section 328, 376 D, 406 IPC and section 5(1) of the prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 P.S. Gazipur, District Lucknow pending in the court of special judge POCSO Act- III, Lucknow titled as (State of U.P. versus Mohd. Azeem Idrishi) and in connected case also to quash the applicant’s criminal prosecution in Criminal Case No. 312/2004, bearing FIR No. 114 of 2004 (State of U.P. versus Om Prakash) under Section 420, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered with Police Station Sidhauli, District Sitapur along with the Cognizance Order dated 17.11.2006 and the Impugned Order dated 01.07.2025 and all the consequential proceedings as against the applicants connected with S.T. No. 300/2025 arising out of supplementary charge sheet no. 2, dated 02.08.2024 relating to case crime no. 0041/2024 dated 28.01.2024, lodged under section 328, 376 D, 406 IPC and section 5(1) of the prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 P.S. Gazipur, District Lucknow pending in the court of special judge POCSO Act- III, Lucknow titled as (State of U.P. versus Mohd. Azeem Idrishi) and to stay the further proceedings.

Factual Matrix

2. Shorn of the details in Criminal case no. 312/2024, an FIR lodged on 25.09.2004 under section 154 of Cr.P.C. against Om Prakash, as per the version of FIR, the accused has dishonestly by fraudulent means obtained the sale deed dated: 06.02.1984 (Bainama) of the complainant Smt. Suhagwati who is an illiterate woman. Om Prakash used the sale deed as security/guarantee in a loan account amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) from Bhagirath Gramin Bank, Branch Sidhauli, District Sitapur.

3. As per the version of the F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 0041 of 2024, the informant alleged that she was raped by one Nihal, who also recorded a video of the incident. On the basis of the said video, he threatened and extorted a sum of ₹3,00,000/- and on one occasion he came along with3,00,000/- and on one occasion he came along with one Azeem, whom the informant claims to have recognised by face, and that the said Azeem also committed rape upon her by blackmailing her.

Issue

4. Both the cases are dealt with the same issue that the police officer without ascertaining the true identity and verifying the identity of the real accused, arrested the innocent person due to factual mistake.

5. Whether the arrest in both the cases suffers from non-verification of the true identity of the accused, leading to the apprehension of an innocent person due to a factual error on the part of the police.

Submission on behalf of applicants

6. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants doesn’t know the complainant by any means. There was no interaction or contact between them. The bank at the request of the guarantor has granted or agreed to grant to the Om Beej Bhandar, Sidhauli District Sitapur (Borrower) banking facilities by way of overdraft and/or promote or loan account upto the aggregate limit of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Om Prakash was the real accused whereas the applicants is Om Prakash Vishwakarma, he is innocent and facing the malicious prosecution. Learned Counsel submits that the applicants is not the proprietor of the company nor has any bank account in his name, he is a clerk and falls under the category of indigent person(s).

7. Learned Counsel for the applicants s