The Allahabad High Court on Thursday concluded the immediate release of the real estate developer Abhay Kumar, finding his arrest made in the Noida techie death case, non-compliant with the mandatory legal procedures. The bench said police failed to follow Clause 13 of the arrest memo, which requires informing the accused of reasons for arrest and supplying them a copy before custody.
In conjunction with the court order, what happens with Mr. Kumar and is there any urgent solution available?
At the request of Mr. Abhay Kumar, a habeas petition had been filed, and the bench consisting of Justices Siddhartha and Jai Krishna Upadhyay cancelled the orders of remand issued on 20th and 21st January. The sole reason why all of this contention arose was that the meeting was convened specifically to consider the case of criminal regards, and not anything else for that matter. It was ordered that Kumar should be set free without any further delay.
When an official like Kumar, one of the directors of the company named MZ Wiztown Planners named, was arrested as part of the case related to the death of Yuvraj Mehta, a 27-year-old software engineer according to the Unique Crime Register of Gautam Buddha Nagar Police, the act of depriving a person of their freedom was justified.
Facts of the Noida techie death case
Mehta on January 16 died in an catastrophic car accident at an undeveloped area of Geogre 150 in Noida after allegedly drowning himself in a vehicle filled with water. It is also reported that the said pit is due to lack of storm water management in that Wiztown Planners’ – managed land plot from 2019-20. Mehta also called for help for some 2 hours before shutting down owing to critical condition.
On January 20, police apprehended Kumar on charges of culpable homicide, causing death due to negligence and a negligent act in clause section 336 IPC. These charges are not dealt with in the order of the court but only the arrest part of it is held as dispositive.
The legal basis is Clause 13. Prior rulings also apply.
The court instructions were given to the respondents due to the absence of Clause 13 of the arrest memo, which requires that a person to be arrested is explained why and when he or she is being arrested and then the person handed over a copy of that memo. The counsel for the accused referred to the judgements of Allahabad High Court in the case of Umang Rastogi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter regarding Mihir Rajesh vs State of Maharashtra.
In both cases, the courts noted that not serving an arrest memo makes detention vulnerable to challenge. The Allahabad High Court that delivered the impugned judgement, found the state of facts as they were in the case before it were corresponding to Umang Rastogi and hence set the remands aside. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith without any conditions.
Expectation in regular practices of police actions and their responsibilities since the previous instruction.
Courts have specified procedure to which such arrests should also conform especially in the case of high profile matters or the more serious offenses. In a subsequent directive dated January 22, the same division asked the state police director general to look into it seriously – Acting against the police officers who fail to disclose the reasons for their arrest, disciplinary action and suspension should be taken.
In this context, the said directives may be ascribed to preventing “illegality” as perceived by the court viz. the american role in the outcome of the arrest within well established parameters and restraints. This judgment goes beyond looking at the action as a singular incident but reinforces the acknowledgment of the structure of the entire police department.
Subsequent steps in the commission of the criminal activities
The question of whether Kumar can walk should be treated as a technicality and released however the investigation is still going on in the killing of the individual Mehta. He should be re-arrested by the police or any other individual only according to procedure attempting to serve an arrest memo that shows meeting the Clauses 13 requirements.
One aspect of the court’s decision was that it did not decide the issue of guilt. The next step will be to conduct investigations which may lead to additional evidence. It is also possible that other types of inquiries (relevant to the site where the damages occurred) might go on unimpeded during that period. All aspects of this case underscore the importance of compliance with certain legal requirements in all activities including crime prevention and detection with emphasis being laid on the jurisprudence that governs the nature of arrests in action from the state.
