Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's arrest and the continuing investigation were illegal or in violation of the Supreme Court's earlier orders, and whether the impugned action could be quashed on that basis.
Analysis: The record showed that the investigation in the FIR had not been closed and that the police had continued to collect material beyond what had been led in the first trial. The Court distinguished the earlier Section 319 CrPC proceedings from the separate power of the investigating agency to conduct further investigation. It held that the Constitution Bench decision had not barred further investigation and had not granted any clean chit to the petitioner. The fresh material relied upon by the investigating agency, including material not forming part of the first trial, was sufficient to sustain the arrest and did not render the action contrary to the earlier Supreme Court orders.
Conclusion: The petitioner's challenge to the arrest and further investigation failed, and the relief sought in the writ petition was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation remained open and fresh material distinct from the evidence of the concluded trial was collected, the police could undertake further investigation and arrest the suspect, notwithstanding earlier orders relating to Section 319 CrPC.