MCRC/53865/2020 of RAVINDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020

Gwalior, Dated:-31/12/2020

Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Alok Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for therespondent/State.

Matter is heard through video conferencing.

I.A.No.25756/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is takenup, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

The applicant has filed this first bail application under Section438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with CrimeNo.551/2020 registered at Police Station City Basoda, DistrictVidisha(M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Section 406of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Ravindrathat the present applicant has not committed any offence in anymanner. There is no direct involvement of the present applicant in thecase. It is further submitted that applicant is reputed citizen of thelocality and if he is sent to jail then his social reputation would getdiminish. Hence, prayed to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to theapplicant or directions be issued in the light of the decision renderedby the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State ofBihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the application and prayed to reject the same.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC andconsidered the arguments advanced by them and perused the casediary.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar(supra) has directed that in offences involving punishment upto sevenyears imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrestonly when the same is necessary and the petitioner does not cooperatein the investigation. The petitioner should first be summoned tocooperate in the investigation. If the petitioner cooperates in theinvestigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:- “7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offencepunishable with imprisonment for a term which may beless than seven years or which may extend to sevenyears with or without fine, cannot be arrested by thepolice officer only on his satisfaction that such personhad committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. Apolice officer before arrest, in such cases has to befurther satisfied that such arrest is necessary to preventsuch person from committing any further offence; orfor proper investigation of the case; or to prevent theaccused from causing the evidence of the offence todisappear; or tampering with such evidence in anymanner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as todissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court orthe police officer; or unless such accused person isarrested, his presence in the court whenever requiredcannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, whichone may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state thefacts and record the reasons in writing which led him tocome to a conclusion covered by any of the provisionsaforesaid, while making such arrest. The law furtherrequires the police officers to record the reasons inwriting for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrestmust put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it reallyrequired ? What purpose it will serve ? What object itwill achieve ? It is only after these questions areaddressed and one or the other conditions asenumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needsto be exercised. Before arrest first the police officersshould have reason to believe on the basis ofinformation and material that the accused hascommitted the offence. Apart from this, the policeofficer has to be satisfied further that the arrest isnecessary for one or the more purposes envisaged bysub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C.9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A Cr.P.C. aimed toavoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest loominglarge on the accused requires to be vitalised. Thisprovision makes it clear that in all cases where thearrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1)Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue noticedirecting the accused to appear before him at aspecified place and time. Law obliges such an accusedto appear before the police officer and it furthermandates that if such an accused complies with theterms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless forreasons to be recorded, the police officer is of theopinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also,the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged underSection 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall besubject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate asaforesaid."

In view of above, present anticipatory bail application is disposed of in the light of laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra).

Prosecution is hereby directed to comply with the directionissued by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra)in it'sletter & spirit.

E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forinformation.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

pwn*

Pawan Kumar 2021.01.01 13:30:55 +05'30'

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) V. Judge