The Allahabad High Court in the case Devendra Singh And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others observed and has disapproved the issuance of notice as stated under section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure to the five accused with an FIR registered against them in the year 2006, about 17 years back.
The bench comprising of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Gajendra Kumar in the case observed and has protected the five accused and also gave them the liberty to apply for anticipatory bail in the matter, wherein calling it a mockery of the criminal jurisprudence.
In the present case, the court was dealing with the criminal writ petition filed by Devendra Singh and four others wherein seeking protection from the court after receiving a notice from the UP Police under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, thus, asking them to record their statement.
It has also been provided under section 160 of the CrPC that a Police Officer, making an investigation into a case, may, by an order in writing, require the attendance before himself, of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information which is being given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
In the present case, the petitioner named Devendra Singh retired as the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, the petitioner no. 2 named Parashuram also superannuated from the post of ADO, Panchayat, the petitioner No. 3 named Ram Kishun retired as Block Pramukh and respondent no.4 and the respondent no 5, were Kotedar at the relevant point of time.
It has also been submitted before the court that the said notice under Section 160 CrPC was after the lapse of 17 years and the investigation in the case is still going on without any cogent result. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioners are more than willing and ready to cooperate in the investigation provided their interests are being protected.
Therefore, the court in the case directed that the interest of the petitioners be protected for the period of one month with the liberty that in case, they apply for anticipatory bail and their anticipatory bail is to be considered sympathetically, keeping in view that the petitioner no. 1 has already attained the age of superannuation and the matter relates to the year 2006, with regards to the court concerned within a period of one week of its filing.
The court in the case made open that the petitioners would cooperate with the investigation.
Accordingly, the court disposed of the present writ plea.
The counsel, Advocate Kamendra Singh appeared for the petitioners.
