OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court.-We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that a Bench of this Court has asked for filing a counter-affidavit by its order dated 19-3-97. It seems that the Bench while issuing direction for filing the counter-affidavit was somehow impressed by the fact that although the death of Azad had taken place on 5- 3-97, on 3-3-97 the petitioner has recorded his statement of Azad during the course of his investigation, in which Azad had given out names of some other persons than those mentioned in the F. I. R. This could not amply explain that the deceased could have died in some other circumstances than as mentioned in the F. I. R. This Court in Seven Judges' Full Bench in Ram tal Yadav and others v. State of U. P. through D. M. Varanasi and others, 1989 A. W. C. 270, has clearly held that if the read ing of an F. I. R. discloses commission of some offence the High Court cannot inter fere in the matter of investigation and similarly the High Court cannot stay the arrest of the petitioner unless reading of t he F. I. R. demonstrates commission of no of fence. The Full Bench authority is binding upon two Judges Bench of this Court. Ac cordingly, this Court will not be justified in interfering either in the investigation in Case Crime No. 67 of 1997 under Section 302/342i. P. C. P. S. Khatauli, District Muzai-farnagar, nor this Court will be justified in staying the arrest of the petitioner.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is dis missed. The stay order granted in this case on 19-3-97 stands automatically vacated. Petition dismissed. .