2017 (8) TMI 1641 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - cognizable offence or not? - HELD THAT - The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case. Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC - Allegation of pressure on petitioners - Prima facie cognizable offence - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as alternative to anticipatory bail.

Analysis:
The petition before the Allahabad High Court sought the quashing of an FIR dated 9.6.2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, P.S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur. The petitioners contended that the FIR was lodged to exert pressure on them and that they had not committed any criminal offence. On the other hand, the learned AGA argued that the FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable offences against the petitioners, warranting no interference.

The High Court referred to previous judgments, including the Full Bench decision in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others, emphasizing that interference with an investigation or staying arrest is not permissible unless no cognizable offence is evident from the FIR or there is a statutory restriction on police powers. The Court reiterated that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used as an alternative to anticipatory bail, stating that what is not directly permissible cannot be done indirectly.

After examining the allegations in the FIR, the Court concluded that they disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. Consequently, the Court refused to quash the FIR, finding no grounds for interference. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were advised to appear before the lower court. If they appeared or surrendered and applied for bail, the lower court was instructed to consider and dispose of the application promptly.