Petition seeking a stay on the arrests of Jumman and Parvaz was heard on Wednesday before a bench comprising of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice D K Singh, the court had stayed the arrest of Jumman. As Parvaz is in Judicial custody his legal team will now apply for his bail as that is the legal remedy available

1. Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27002 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mahmood Alias Jumman Baba And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Ahmed Faizan,Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Prakash Sharma
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Utsav Singh,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Prakash Sharma, counsel for the caveator, Sri S.K. Pal,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record..
At the very outset, learned counsel for the caveator has pointed out to the Court that petitioner
No. 2 Parvez Parvaz s/o Late Sibte Hasan @ Dhukkar has already been arrested by the police
yesterday i.e. on 25.9.2018 to which learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has no
knowledge about it but when the learned AGA as well as counsel for the petitioners were
asked to verify the said fact that whether petitioner No. 2 has already been arrested or not they
after verifying the same has informed the Court that he has been arrested and sent to jail, in
view of the same, the petition on behalf of petitioner No.2 has become infructuous and it is,
accordingly, dismissed as infructuous on behalf of petitioner no. 2 and the Court proceed to
hear the matter on behalf of petitioner no. 1.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is litigating with
one Ikrar Ahmad with respect to Dargah namely Hazrat Mubarak Shah Ki Dargah, near
Normal School, Turkmanpur, Gorakhpur registered with Sunni Central Waqf Board as Waqf
No.151 Gorakhpur. He has further stated that a writ petition has also been filed by the
petitioner no. 1 being Writ Petition No. 23884 of 2016 which is pending and in the said writ
petition Ikrar Ahmad s/o Mukhtar Ali, who at present is President of the Managing Committee
of the said Dargah, is one of the respondent. He argued that the informant, who is the victim
of the present case, has a shop in the premises of the said Dargah and the said fact has been
mentioned in para No. 8 of the affidavit. It was further submitted that so far petitioner No. 2,
who has already been arrested in the present case is concerned, he had earlier initiated some
criminal proceedings against some political persons before this Court which has reached upto
the Apex Court and the said matter is subjudice before the Apex Court on account of which he
has also been falsely implicated in the present case by respondent No. 5 at the instance of
some political influence. It was further argued that so far the allegation against the petitioner
No.1 is concerned, he is aged about 65 years and the said allegation is absolutely false and
baseless. It is further submitted that in the present case, the FIR which was lodged against the
petitioners, a final report was submitted by the police on 25.7.2018 stating that the respondent
no. 5 in collusion with the person, namely, Ikrar Ahmad, who is litigating with the petitioner
over the property of said Dargah in which she is running a shop, has lodged a false F.I.R.
against them but before the same could reach the Court, the SSP Gorakhpur on the report of
the respondent no. 4-Dr. Shalini Singh, In-charge Inspector, Mahila Thana, Gorakhpur dated
12.8.2018, has found that the investigation which was conducted by investigating officer was
not conducted properly and final report has wrongly been submitted, hence, vide order dated
18.8.2018/20.9.2018 he appointed respondent no. 4 to re-investigate the matter.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that so far as the report which is stated to have
been submitted by the Dr. Shalini Singh-respondent no. 4 on 12.8.2018 appears to be a
suspicious one as she was never entrusted with the investigation of the case earlier and the
same was entrusted to her by the order dated 18.8.2018/20.9.2018, a photocopy of which has

2. been annexed at page No.43 of the petition.
Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the notices which was sent by respondent No.
4 to the witnesses of the case under Section 160 Cr.P.C. dated 15.8.2018, a photocopy of the
notice sent to one of the witnesses, namely, Meraj Jamal son of Mohammad Shafiullah
resident of Turkmanpur, police station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur has been annexed on page-
45 of the present petition, to show that suspicious action of the respondent no. 4 as she was
appointed as investigating officer by the S.S.P. Gorakhpur vide letter dated
18.8.2018/20.9.2018. He has further submitted that some of the witnesses of the present case
has submitted the application alongwith the affidavits on 31.8.2018 and on 6.9.2018
respectively to the S.S.P. concerned a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.7
stating therein that the statement given by them under section 161 Cr.P.C. before the earlier
I.O. who has submitted the final report is the same. Hence, no further statement is to be given
by them. He further states that arrest of petitioner No.2 appears to be mala fide one just
because of some political influence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
though allegation of rape has been levelled by the victim, who is a married woman, in her
statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. but the same does not corroborate by her
medical examination report as no injury was found on her person
Learned counsel for the caveator has vehemently opposed the argument of counsel for the
petitioner and submitted that lodging of the FIR by respondent No.5 against the petitioners
have no concern with the litigation going on with Ikrar Ahmad of petitioner No.1 nor the
arrest of petitioner No.2 due to political influence. It is stated as per statement recorded u/s
161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has alleged the allegation against petitioner No.1 and
petitioner No.2 but he could not dispute the fact that there has been a litigation of the Waqf
Board where informant is running the shop.
Learned Government Advocate also opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the
allegations, it is directed that the petitioner no. 1 shall not be arrested in above mentioned
case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but he shall co-
operate with the investigation of the case.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 26.9.2018
Shiraz