Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226:

Writ Jurisdiction of High Court-Matter under investigation-Directions issued by the High Court to the State/investigating Officer to arrest the accused C and show no laxity in the investigation-Held, such directions amounted to -unjustified interference in the investigation of the case-Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406 and 409/34.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 41:

Anticipatory bail-Rejection-Direction by High Court to arrest accused-Correctness of-Held, Investigating officer may or may not arrest accused person depending on the facts and circumstances of the case-It is wrong to assume that on rejection of anticipatory bail application State must arrest accused person.

Maharashtra Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Employees Association & Others filed a Writ Petition seeking direction against the State to expedite investigation lodged by the Provident Fund Commissioner against several Directors of the Company. High Court directed the State to arrest and prosecute the accused and held that Investigating Officer was not justified in not proceeding against the accused on the ground that no funds have been misappropriated by accused. In the meanwhile, on appeal filed by the aggrieved appellants, this Court stayed High Court's order of arrest of accused. High Court further directed the State not to show any laxity in the investigation. Hence the present appeals.

It was contended for the appellants that High Court could not direct the investigating Agency or the State to arrest accused and submit investigation report while matter was under investigation.