HC is not authorized to give the order “not to arrest” while the petition U / s 482 CrPC-SC is being disposed of
The Apex Court in the case of M / s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against Maharashtra Stateruled that high courts, while rejecting petitions under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226, may not issue “no arrest” and / or “no coercive measures” either during the investigation or until the final charge sheet under Section 486 is filed. 173 CrPC.
In the present case, Bombay HC issued an injunction on a written petition that allowed time for an affidavit to be filed, and then issued an injunction not to take any coercive measures against the respondents.
The bank determined that the HC should refrain from issuing such interim injunctions if the proceedings are at a point where the investigation is still ongoing, the facts are blurry, or not all evidence is being brought to the relevant court.
In addition, the respective court should dismiss the accused in order to apply for an early bail according to § 438 CrPC.
However, the bank issued certain guidelines and explained the circumstances under which the HC would be entitled to issue such interim measures: “Do not arrest” or “No coercion”.
The bank stated that if police officers had the right to investigate identifiable crimes in accordance with the provisions set out in Chapter XIV, and if the courts did not attempt to thwart investigations into such crimes, such interim injunctions would be warranted.
The bank also stated that such interim injunctions should not be of the type used to negotiate criminal proceedings in the initial stages and that the lifting of FIR or appeal should be an exception rather than a common rule.
The Apex Court found that such interim injunctions were issued by various high courts for no reason.