E-Paper
Allahabad HC directs police not to arrest Jawed Habib, his son without due process
The court directed the police to follow the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court
The Allahabad high court while disposing of a bunch of petitions filed by hair stylist Jawed Habib and his son, has directed the police not to mechanically arrest the duo till the culmination of the investigation in the case.
The court passed this order when the counsel for petitioners confined the relief in the petition to grant of protection under Section 41-A CrPC. Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) allows the police to issue a “notice of appearance” instead of an immediate arrest for certain offences where an arrest is not required. This notice requires the person to appear before the police officer at a specific time and place to assist with an investigation, and failure to comply can lead to their arrest.
A bench of justice Siddhartha Varma and justice Achal Sachdeva passed the order while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by the duo challenging a series of FIRs lodged in district Sambhal and seeking a restraint on their arrest.
The bench observed, “It is expected of the police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever.”
The FIRs, 32 in number, alleged that the father-son duo conducted a seminar in September 2023, where attendees were encouraged to invest sums ranging from ₹2 lakh to ₹20 lakh in a company with assurances of attractive returns.
According to the FIRs, the investors neither received the promised profits nor a refund of their principal amounts even two years later.
However, the court refused to quash the FIR and observed, “We have perused the First Information Report which prima facie discloses cognisable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.”
The court then observed, “However, considering the fact that all offences mentioned in the present case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
