BHARAT RAM BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 has been accepted by Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State, who prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to the respondent no.3 returnable within three weeks.

(2.) Sri Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no case under Section 406 I.P.C.is made out against the petitioner. Now on the basis of statement given by the Co-accused from whose possession goods were allegedly recovered, police wants to implicate the petitioner. Nothing was ever entrusted to the petitioner From the perusal of the recovery memo available on the file, it is revealed that petitioner is the owner of Bhatt Hotel ,Rishikesh.

(3.) Having heard and having perused the record I direct that petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. till further order of this court. Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. It is clarified that if custody of the petitioner is required by the Investigation Officer for the purpose of interrogation/investigation, he can seek permission from this court.