MCRC/53394/2020 of DILIP KUMAR JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020

Gwalior, Dated : 31/12/2020

Shri Ravi Rahul, learned counsel for the applicant.

Smt. Padmshri Agarwal, learned Panel Lawyer for therespondent/State.

Matter is heard through video conferencing.

The applicant has filed this first bail application underSection 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with CrimeNo.341/2020 registered at Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuriin relation to the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 34of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant–DilipKumar Jatav that he is innocent and he has not committed anyoffence. The complainant of this case, who is wife of the presentapplicant, was earlier married to some other person. After marryingwith the present applicant, she continued to talk with her earlierhusband due to that some altercation took place between thecomplainant and the present applicant. On the basis of above,complainant of this case, who is wife of the present applicant filedthis false case against the present applicant. Present applicant is

MCRC-53394-2020(DILIP KUMAR JATAVVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

having one child with the complainant and they were residingtogether since last 4 years. Hence, prayed to grant benefit ofanticipatory bail to the applicant or directions be issued in the lightof the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed theapplication and has submitted that the offence is registered undersections 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of DowryProhibition Act and the present applicant is husband, who hasdemanded four wheeler as dowry due to that the complaint has beenregistered against the present applicant. Hence, prayed to reject thesame.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VCand considered the arguments advanced by them and perused thecase diary.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar(supra) has directed that in offences involving punishment uptoseven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme stepof arrest only when the same is necessary and the petitioner doesnot cooperate in the investigation. The petitioner should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the petitionercooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest shouldnot arise.

For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) areenumerated below:- “7.1. From a plain reading of the provisionu/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a personaccused of an offence punishable withimprisonment for a term which may be less thanseven years or which may extend to seven yearswith or without fine, cannot be arrested by thepolice officer only on his satisfaction that suchperson had committed the offence punishable asaforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in suchcases has to be further satisfied that such arrestis necessary to prevent such person fromcommitting any further offence; or for properinvestigation of the case; or to prevent theaccused from causing the evidence of theoffence to disappear; or tampering with suchevidence in any manner; or to prevent suchperson from making any inducement, threat orpromise to a witness so as to dissuade him fromdisclosing such facts to the court or the policeofficer; or unless such accused person isarrested, his presence in the court wheneverrequired cannot be ensured. These are theconclusions, which one may reach based onfacts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to statethe facts and record the reasons in writing whichled him to come to a conclusion covered by anyof the provisions aforesaid, while making sucharrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for notmaking the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer beforearrest must put a question to himself, whyarrest? Is it really required ? What purpose itwill serve ? What object it will achieve ? It isonly after these questions are addressed and oneor the other conditions as enumerated above issatisfied, the power of arrest needs to beexercised. 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, thepolice officer has to be satisfied further that thearrest is necessary for one or the more purposesenvisaged by sub-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 to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat ofarrest looming large on the accused requires tobe vitalised. This provision makes it clear that inall cases where the arrest of a person is notrequired under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C., the policeofficer is required to issue notice directing theaccused to appear before him at a specifiedplace and time. Law obliges such an accused toappear before the police officer and it furthermandates that if such an accused complies withthe terms of notice he shall not be arrested,unless for reasons to be recorded, the policeofficer is of the opinion that the arrest isnecessary. At this stage also, the conditionprecedent for arrest as envisaged under Section41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall besubject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate asaforesaid."

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, present anticipatory bail application is

MCRC-53394-2020(DILIP KUMAR JATAVVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

disposed of in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

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

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

Monika

MONIKA SHARMA 2021.01.01 12:15:06 +05'30'

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) V. Judge