VIKRAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. This bail application has been moved by one Vikram who has been an accused in offences punishable under Section 307/324/302, I. P. C. Police Station. Ghazipur District Lucknow.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate have been heard. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case provisions of Section 50 (1) of Cr. P. C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India have not been followed inas much as the grounds and the full particulars of the offences were not disclosed to him at the time of his arrest. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate the particulars of offences were indicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest which fact is corroborated by entry in the general diary and in the affidavit of the arresting officer. A perusal of file will go to show that accused Vikram was arrested on 4-5-1993. Annexuie-1 to the bail application is the F. I. R. which has been lodged against the applicant. Annexure-2 is the copy of recovery memo. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 3-5- 1993 and a report of that inci dent was lodged on the same day at about 10. 30 a. m. A perusal of Annexure-2 recovery memo, goes to show that Vikram was arrested on 4-5-1993 at about 9. 00 p. m. He admitted to have committed the crime and on the pointing out of Vikram, one knife was recovered and statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. was also recorded. In the present case the accused has also tiled an affidavit stating therein that he has not committed any offence and he was arrested by the police from his house and he was not disclosed any ground on which be was being arrested. He has further stated that no knife was recovered on his pointing out. As against this Sri A. N. Shukla who is arresting officer also filed an affidavit stating therein that the accused was arrested as he was wanted in crime No. 262/93 under Section 307/324/302, I. P. C. and he had committed the murder of deceased Iqbal. The accused was told the reasons of his arrest at the time of his arrest. He also, on being questioned, became ready to get the knife recovered. The knife was got recovered and recovery memo was prepared on the spot and a copy of the same was given to the accused whose signatures were also obtained on the memo. A copy of Fard Baramdgi is also attached to the counter-affidavit.

(3.) THE next case is Hazari Lal v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 LLJ 230 ). This case has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in which the plea was taken that the detention of the petitioner was illegal in view of the provisions of Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. In that case reliance was also placed on the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. , (supra ). In that case considering the facts of the case the Court held that the illegality which had been committed by the arresting officer cannot be cured. In that case one Vijay Bahadur Singh also filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties. Even the allegations which were mentioned in the counter affidavit about the disclosure of the full particulars of the offence were not relied upon by the Court. It was observed that it cannot be said even on the basis of this counter-affidavit that the grounds/reasons were disclosed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest in conformity with the regulations of law. Thus from this case it comes out that even if an affidavit has been filed by the arresting officer stating therein that he had disclosed full grounds of arrest to the accused, even then it is not sufficient unless the same is also mentioned in detail in General diary.