Case: Rajkumari and Anr Vs. S.H.O., Noida and Ors

to the police personnel of the concerned police station to arrest the leaders of the workers who had resorted to violence. According to the respondents, the investigation done by them showed that petitioner no.1 Rajkumari was leading a mob of workers and had incited them and as a result whereof, they caused injuries to the managing staff and owners of the industrial units and caused damage to the property. In fact, the police after completing investigation has submitted charge sheet against petitioner no.1 under Sections 147/323/427 IPC in case Crime No. 327G and under Sections 147/323/427/506 IPC in Case Crime No. 327H on 11.10.1998. The concerned ACJM has taken cognizance of the offences and has issued process against petitioner no.1 vide his orders dated 2.11.1998. The petitioner no.1 is now facing trial in the aforesaid two criminal cases. 12. The main allegation in the writ petitions as also in the contempt petitions is that petitioner no.1 was arrested by the police at about 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 15/16.8.1997. On the other hand, the specific case of the respondents is that she was not arrested in the night, as alleged, but was arrested at about 5.30 a.m. on 16.8.1997. In support of her version, the only affidavit on record is that of petitioner no.1 herself. She has not filed affidavit of any other person to corroborate her version of the incident. On the other hand, Shri Rama Kant Prasad, Dy. S.P., Noida, Shri Devinder Singh, Shri P.R. Singh and Shri B.D. Dubey have filed affidavits denying the version of petitioner no.1 and have averred that she was arrested at 5.30 a.m. in the morning hours. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by petitioner no.1 herself and no other affidavit or corroborating material has been filed to support her version of the time of her arrest. In view of these conflicting affidavits and no independent or corroborative material having been filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is not possible to hold that petitioner no.1 had been arrested at 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 15/16.8.1997 or that the version given by the respondents that she was arrested at 5.30 a.m. on 16.8.1997 is not correct. In case the investigation officer of Case Crime No. 327G and 327H came to the conclusion that petitioner no.1 had committed cognizable offences, he was perfectly within his right to arrest her and no exception can be taken to such a course of action. 13. Regarding the plea taken by petitioner no.1 that the directions issued by this Court in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) had not been violated, it may be stated at the very outset that admittedly petitioner no.1 was produced in the Court of concerned Magistrate on that very day i.e. on 16.8.1997. She applied for bail in both the cases and in the bail applications, the pleas taken by her were (i) that she had been falsely implicated in the case; (ii) that she had no criminal background; (iii) that there is no public witness of the crime in question; (iv) that she is a lady and belongs to a respectably family; (v) that she is prepared to furnish adequate surety; and (vi) that there is no apprehension of tampering with prosecution witnesses from her side. She did not state anything nor did she make any grievance before the concerned Magistrate regarding non-compliance of the directions issued in the aforesaid two cases, though her bail application was drafted and filed by a lawyer. If the plea taken now in the writ petitions was correct, in normal course grievance regarding the same should have been made on that very day when she was produced before the Magistrate especially when the legal aid and advice of a counsel was available to her. 14. In the affidavits filed by the respondents, it is averred that the name plate showing their name and designation was affixed on the uniform of all the police personnel; that it was a lady Constable Saroj Sharma, who had formally arrested petitioner no.1; that the grounds of arrest were disclosed not only to her but also to her son and husband; that her family members including her son and husband, some relations and friends were throughout present at the police station and that she was sent to the Court of the concerned Magistrate at 9.15 a.m. It is averred that an arrest memo was prepared at the time of her arrest and she was asked to sign the same but she refused to do. It is further averred that the police personnel who arrested her informed that she would be released on bail in case she furnished bail bonds but she declined to do so by saying that she was a ‘Neta’ and her obtaining bail would lower her image before the workers and they would feel demoralized. A copy of the arrest memo has also been placed on record. Apart from her own affidavit, petitioner no.1 has not filed affidavit of any other person to show that the version given by the respondents is not correct. She could have easily filed affidavits of her son and husband, but she has chosen not to do so. On the material which is available on record, it is not possible to hold that the directions issued in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) were flouted or were not complied with by the respondents. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no ground has been made out for initiating any action against the respondents.15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not made any submission regarding the prayer made in the writ petitions that a general direction may be issued to the respondents to stop arresting women between sunset and sunrise except in grave offences like murder. We are also of the opinion that this is not a fit case where some general directions may be issued and this may be done in a more appropriate case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. In the affidavits filed by the respondents, it is averred that the name plate showing their name and designation was affixed on the uniform of all the police personnel; that it was a lady Constable Saroj Sharma, who had formally arrested petitioner no.1; that the grounds of arrest were disclosed not only to her but also to her son and husband; that her family members including her son and husband, some relations and friends were throughout present at the police station and that she was sent to the Court of the concerned Magistrate at 9.15 a.m. It is averred that an arrest memo was prepared at the time of her arrest and she was asked to sign the same but she refused to do. It is further averred that the police personnel who arrested her informed that she would be released on bail in case she furnished bail bonds but she declined to do so by saying that she was aand her obtaining bail would lower her image before the workers and they would feel demoralized. A copy of the arrest memo has also been placed on record. Apart from her own affidavit, petitioner no.1 has not filed affidavit of any other person to show that the version given by the respondents is not correct. She could have easily filed affidavits of her son and husband, but she has chosen not to do so. On the material which is available on record, it is not possible to hold that the directions issued in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) were flouted or were not complied with by the respondents. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no ground has been made out for initiating any action against the respondents.15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not made any submission regarding the prayer made in the writ petitions that a general direction may be issued to the respondents to stop arresting women between sunset and sunrise except in grave offences like murder. We are also of the opinion that this is not a fit case where some general directions may be issued and this may be done in a more appropriate case.Regarding the plea taken by petitioner no.1 that the directions issued by this Court in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) had not been violated, it may be stated at the very outset that admittedly petitioner no.1 was produced in the Court of concerned Magistrate on that very day i.e. on 16.8.1997. She applied for bail in both the cases and in the bail applications, the pleas taken by her were (i) that she had been falsely implicated in the case; (ii) that she had no criminal background; (iii) that there is no public witness of the crime in question; (iv) that she is a lady and belongs to a respectably family; (v) that she is prepared to furnish adequate surety; and (vi) that there is no apprehension of tampering with prosecution witnesses from her side. She did not state anything nor did she make any grievance before the concerned Magistrate regardingof the directions issued in the aforesaid two cases, though her bail application was drafted and filed by a lawyer. If the plea taken now in the writ petitions was correct, in normal course grievance regarding the same should have been made on that very day when she was produced before the Magistrate especially when the legal aid and advice of a counsel was available to her.