Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Rajendra Prasad Bamrara - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No.1686 of 2017
Decided On : 07-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Pratiroop Pandey and Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.As. with Ms. Lata Negi, Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate
Point of Law : Release of accuse – Arrest made after investigation is completed - Order of release passed is not a bail order. It is an act, by which, the Court has rectified a mistake which crept in its order due to a wrong communication made to the Court. Once petitioner appears, the court will hear it afresh on the point of his custody and bail.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 197 - Arrest of accused after investigation is complete – Offence of Forgery for purpose of cheating – There is adequate evidence against the petitioner and the process for obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is underway and once prosecution sanction is obtained chargesheet would be submitted. It is a kind of lack of communication, which resulted in order and 22.09.2020. The Court was wrongly told that, investigation had been completed. This mistake has to be rectified and order deserves to be recalled on this ground alone.
Finding of the Court : There is adequate evidence against the petitioner and the process for obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is underway and once prosecution sanction is obtained chargesheet would be submitted. It is a kind of lack of communication, which resulted in order - Court was wrongly told that -, investigation had been completed. This mistake has to be rectified and order deserves to be recalled on this ground alone.
Result : Writ petition disposed on
JUDGMENT :
Instant writ petition was filed for quashing of the FIR No.1 of 2017, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Udaipur Valla-5, District Pauri and directions that the petitioner be not harassed pursuant to the FIR.
2. The petition was heard on 13.10.2017, when the Court passed the following order:-
“Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Heard.
Admit.
Three weeks’ time is granted to the counsel for the respondents to file their counter affidavits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that total amount of Contributory Provident Fund account has deposited in the account of Chief Education Officer/Manager of the institution whereas the submission of Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Advocate for the complainant is that Contributory Provident Fund money was taken by the petitioner and was kept by him. Mr. Phartiyal, further submitted that even if the amount is deposited but the offence is made out against the petitioner. He submitted that this is factual controversy and the stand of the State is yet not known.
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General submitted that he may be given shortest time for getting this fact verified from the competent person and he will inform the Court about the same on the next date fixed. He requested that the case be listed on 26.10.2017 immediately after fresh cases.
List this case on 26.10.2017.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that till 26.10.2017, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with FIR No.01 of 2017 dated 06.10.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Udaipur Valla 5 District Pauri provided he cooperates with the investigating agency in the investigation of the case.
Interim relief application stands disposed of.
Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.10.2017 for recording his statement and also for giving his explanation. Investigating Officer will also hear the complainant in respect of his case.
It is directed that in case petitioner does not cooperate with the investigating agency, it will be open for the complainant to move stay vacation application. It is also directed that in case some credible evidence is found against the petitioner, in that event, Investigating Officer will be at liberty to prosecute against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Let the certified copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges.”
3. The hearing of the petition continued. On 17.08.2020, a statement was given by the learned State counsel that:-
“Investigating Officer has completed the investigation, but, chargesheet is yet to be filed.”
4. On 22.09.2020, what happened before the Court is reproduced as hereunder:
“Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, DAG for the State.
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for private respondent.
This matter is heard through Video Conferencing.
On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that on 17.08.2020, a statement was given on behalf of the State that investigation has been completed, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.
Since, the writ petition has become infructuous, it stands disposed of accordingly”
5. The instant petition accordingly stood disposed of then. Now, petitioner has filed a recall application and a release application. It is stated that despite statement having been given to the Court that investigation has been completed and the proceedings of the writ petition stood disposed of, the petitioner has been arrested. According to the petitioner, his detention is illegal. Petitioner also seeks his release. A few facts may be narrated that after his arrest the petitioner also moved applications for bail, which has been rejected by the court below.
6. Heard learned couns
