- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the com plicity of the applicant in the alleged crime was disclosed by the labourers, who stated that they have brought the fertilizer from the factory of the applicant.
(2.) THE case crime No. 917 under Sec tions 3/7 E. G. Act and 419/420, IPC PS. Rajghat, district Gorakhpur is at the in vestigation stage. The Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, (1994) 4 SCC 260,1994 JIC 760 (SC) has observed that no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police officer to do so. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuine ness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasanable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. A person is not liable to ar rest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. With the observation that the ar resting officer before effecting the arrest shall follow the directions given by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the application is disposed of. Application disposed of. .;