Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86403-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9896 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nitin Pundhir And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Dubey,G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 (informant). 2. Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned FIR dated 26.04.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0173 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115 (2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present matter relates to matrimonial dispute. The petitioners are brother- in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani) of respondent no.3. They have no concern with the family of respondent no.3 and her husband and they are living separately for last three years. He submits that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others) in which guidelines have been framed following the judgement of the Apex Court in different cases, relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less. 4. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised through the repetitive pronouncements of the Apex Court, which is on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Ref. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of non- compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. The same has been elaborately dealt with in paragraphs 7.1 to 12 of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra). 5. We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by this Court in the above noted judgment are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in view of the judgments cited above. . (Anil Kumar-X, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.) Order Date :- 22.5.2025 RKP Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad