RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. S. Ahmad J. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to restore his personal liberty and not to keep him in Police surveillance.

(2.) FROM the facts set out in the petition, it appears that the petitioner was involved in a case under Section 302, I. P. C. (Crime Case No. 2194 of 1974) of Police Station Qaiser Bagh, Lucknow as a result of which he was prosecuted in S. T. No. 109-A of '75 and was acquitted on 19-7-76 by II Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The petitioner was also proceeded against under the pro visions of the Goonda Act but judgment and order, dated 21-1 1978 passed by Additional District Magistrate (City), Lucknow the proceedings were dropped. The petitioner was involved in another case under Section 302, I. P. C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act which ended in acquittal on 12-5-1978.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit of S. I. Bhanu Pratap Singh regarding whom allegations have made in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ potion, has been filed, in which it has been stated as under : "3. That it is submitted that allegations as alleged in Paragraph 7 of the petition against the deponent are totally false and incorrect hence denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested by Sub- Inspector Chavi Narain Singh under Section 4/2 Arum Act at about 3. 30 p. m. and a case on Crime No. 424/86 was registered against him. A photo copy of the F. 1. R. of Case Crime No. 424/86 under Section 4/25 Arms Act, is enclosed as Annexure MCA-1 to this counter-affidavit. 4. That in reply to the contents of Paragraph 8 of the petition it is submitted that the deponent has got no concerned so far a serial of telegram is concerned. Regarding tiling of the complaint against the deponent and two other constables, the deponent has no know ledge of the same for the reason that up till date the deponent has not received any notice from the court concerned. "