Bombay High Court
Mohd Ahrar Mohd Shamim Qurashi vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 7 May, 2024
926.aba.190.24.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.190 OF 2024
(Mohd. Ahrar Mohd. Shamim Qurashi Vs. State of Maharashtra)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. U.R. Phasate, APP for the State.
CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED :- MAY 7, 2024.
Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking
pre-arrest bail. The applicant is apprehending arrest at the
hands of police in connection with Crime No.55/2024
registered with police station Achalpur, District Amravati
for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The accusation against the present applicant
is on the basis of report lodged by Mangesh Bhaskarrao
Solanke who alleged that present applicant has produced
the disability certificate to extend the benefit under the
Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. Said benefit is for the
handicapped persons. On scrutiny it revealed that the
certificate produced by the present applicant is a forged
certificate, and therefore, the benefit was not extended
and the crime was registered against the present
applicant.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that as far as the role of the present applicant is
concerned, he has not forged the said document. The
benefit is also not extended to him, it can be at the most
termed as an attempt on the part of the present applicant.
He further submitted that considering no benefit was
extended, his custodial interrogation is not required. The
certificate is already seized. He be protected by granting
pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly
opposed the application on the ground that during the
investigation it revealed that the scheme Sanjay Gandhi
Niradhar Yojana is for the physically disabled people to
assist them by providing some amount for their livelihood.
Present applicant has produced the disability certificate to
extend the said benefit for himself and during scrutiny it
revealed that said certificate is forged one. His custodial
interrogation is required to ascertain from which place he
has got prepared the said certificate. In view of that, the
application deserves to be rejected.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for both the
parties. The alleged offence registered under Section 465,
468 and 471 of IPC for which punishment is less than 7
years is provided. Learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that considering that the custodial interrogation
is not required and in view of the observation of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, [(2022) 10 SCC 51] the applicant
be protected by granting pre-arrest bail. On perusal of the
investigation papers it reveals that the forged certificate
was produced by the present applicant to avail the benefit
of the said scheme. Admittedly, the alleged offences are
punishable with less than 7 years punishment. Section 41
under Chapter V of the Code deals with the arrest of
persons. In the Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation (supra) even for a cognizable offence, an
arrest is not mandatory as can be seen from the mandate
of this provision. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that
if the officer is satisfied that a person has committed a
cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may be less than seven years, or which may
extend to the said period, with or without fine, an arrest
could only follow when he is satisfied that there is a
reason to believe or suspect, that the said person has
committed an offence, and there is a necessity for an
arrest. This provision mandates the police officer to record
his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a
police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for
arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with
Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the
person suspected of the offence.
7. In the present case, there is no compliance by
the Investigating Officer by issuing the notice under
Section 41 of Cr.P.C. to the present applicant. The
Investigating Officer shall follow the procedure laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. In
the meantime, the applicant can be protected by granting
ad-interim protection. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
following order:
(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant -
Mohd. Ahrar Mohd. Shamim Qurashi in
connection with Crime No.55/2024
registered with police station Achalpur,
District Amravati for the offence punishable
under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, be released on ad-interim
anticipatory bail on executing a P.R.Bond in
the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent
surety, in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the
concerned police station once in a week i.e.
on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and
1.00 pm. and shall cooperate with the
investigating agency.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement and threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the present case.
(iv) The Investigating Officer shall issue the
notice under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. to the
present applicant.
8. Place the matter after Summer Vacation,
2024.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
*Divya
