U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1. A first information report was lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents brought on record.

3. Criminal Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. Considering the facts of the case as narrated in the first information report and the grounds taken up in the criminal writ petition, it is provided that the petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that he has committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioner shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied.

5. The petitioner is directed to approach the investigating officer of the case for interrogation/investigation on 10th March, 2015.

2015 (1) N.C.C. 705

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen

Criminal Appeal Nos. 47-48 of 2013

ASHOK DEBBARMA @ ACHAK DEBBARMA– Appellant

Versus

STATE OF TRIPURA– Respondent

Decided on : 04.03.2014

For the Appellant:Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R., Advocate

For the Respondent:Mr. Gopal Singh and Mr. Ritu Raj Biswas, Advocates

Cases referred :

1.Tahsildar Singh & anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012.

2.Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde & anr v. State of Karnataka (2004) 12 SCC 492.

3.Dana Yadav alias Dahu and others v. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295.

4.Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 438.

5.S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1976) 2 SCC 819.

6.Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar (2009) 6 SCC 595.

7.Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1953 SC 468.

8.State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346.

9.Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration AIR 1958 SC 350.

10.Harbhajan Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1975) 4 SCC 480.

11.Jadunath Singh and another v. State of UP (1970) 3 SCC 518.

12.George & others v. State of Kerala and another (1998) 4 SCC 605.

13.Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. (2003) 5 SCC 746.

14.State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and another (1992) 3 SCC 700.

15.Narain Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) 3 SCR 678.

16.Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and another (2002) 10 SCC 236.

17.Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla (2004) 9 SCC 15.

18.Bishnu Prasad Sinha and another v. State of Assam (2007) 11 SCC 467.

19.Krishnan and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2003) 7 SCC 56.

20.Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai and others (2002)12 SCC 395.

21.Commonwealth v. John W. Webster 5 Cush 295, 320 (1850).

22.Donald Gene Franklin v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections 487 US 164 (1988) : 101 L Ed 2d 155.

23.Charles E. Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison v. David Leroy Washington 466 US 668 (1984).

24.Madhav Hayawadanrao S. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 544.

25.State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi and Others (1979) 2 SCC 236.

26.Hussainara Khatoon & ors (IV) v. Home Secy, State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 98.

27.Ranjan Dwivedi v. Union of India (1983) 3 SCC 307.

28.Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 367.

29.Tej Prakash v. State of Haryana (1996) 7 SCC 322.

30.Santosh Kumar Satisbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498.

31.Swamy Shradananada (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767.

(A)Test Identification Parade — Conduction of — Object of — To find whether or not the suspect is the real offender.(Para 16)

(B)Test Identification Parade — Evidence — Nature — If the witnes