Sunil Kurre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 304 of 2018 • Sunil Kurre S/o K.P. Surre, Aged About 39 Years R/o Talapara, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. Station House Officer, Police Station Gol Bazaar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajay Thakre, Advocate For State :

Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 27/09/2018 This petition has been filed by the petitioner for restraining the respondent authorities from proceeding further in the criminal cases against the petitioner. 2.

After going through the petition, it is found that certain offences have been registered against some of the persons and it is stated that when those persons were arrested, in their memorandum statement, the petitioner has also been involved. 3.

At this stage, however, it is submitted that though offences have not been registered, the petitioner is apprehending that he may also be involved in the criminal case on the basis of those memorandum statement. 4.

I am afraid that this petition, at this stage, is not only misconceived but also premature. It appears that in some investigation, the name of the petitioner has come

in the memorandum statement of certain accused persons wherein investigation is still going on. Whether or not the criminal case is required to be registered against the petitioner will depend upon the material collected by the police during investigation. If the petitioner is apprehending that he may be arrested, remedy of filing anticipatory bail is always there.

5.

At this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge against registration of FIR, if any, as may be available to him under the law. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti