IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2010 of 2022

Gulsannawar & Others

……Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

……Respondents

Present:

Mr. Bilal Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

Date of hearing and order: 02.11.2022

Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have

prayed as follows:-

(i)

Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of

certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated

25.10.2022 registered as case crime no. 267 of

2022 U/s 153-A IPC P.s. Khanpur District

Haridwar.

(ii)

Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of

mandamus commanding the respondents not to

arrest

the

petitioners

in

case

crime

no.

267/2022 U/s 153-A IPC P.S. Khanpur District

Haridwar.

(iii)

Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of

mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2

to follow the law laid dows by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and

others 2014 (3) SCC (Criminal) pg 419, order

passed

by

this

Hon’ble

Court

in

WPCRL

1432/2022 and Section 41 of CRPC.

2.

In course of advancing arguments, the learned

counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the

offences are punishable with maximum term of five

years, a direction may be granted for following the

mandate of Section 41-A of the Code and ratio decided

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh

Kumar vs. State of Bihar & anr, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

2

3.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, the learned A.G.A. on the

other hand would submit that since there is already a

direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, repeated

direction is not required. The police officers in the State of

Uttarakhand are following the principle of law and

procedure established in the matter of arrest of any

person in which the punishment is not more than seven

years.

4.

Coming to the merits of the case, it is apparent that

the complainant has alleged that the petitioners were

moving in a bus and were giving slogans about anti

religious feelings, so this Court is of the opinion that,

prima facie, case is made out. However, in view of the

fact that Section 153-A of the Penal Code is not

punishable with a term exceeding seven years, this Court

observes that the ratio decided in Arnesh Kumar (supra)

is squarely applicable. There is no need to give repeated

direction. In case, the investigating agency violates the

order

of

the

Hon’ble

Supreme

Court

a

natural

consequence of contempt and departmental proceedings

shall ensues.

5.

With such observation, the writ petition is disposed

of.

6.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed

of.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)

(Grant certified copy as per rules)

PV

3

4