Ramakant Ptel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1504 MP

                                                                             1                          MCRC-17571-2021
                                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                           MCRC-17571-2021
                                                           (RAMAKANT PTEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                         1
                                         Jabalpur, Dated : 22-04-2021
                                               Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                               Shri D.S. Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.
                                               ShriYogendra Das Yadav, learned Government Advocate. for the
                                         respondent-State.

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.96/2021 registered at Police Station-Govindgarh, District-Rewa, (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 294,, 323, & 34 of IPC.

The allegation against the present applicant is that applicant and other co-accused persons abducted the complainant by tied up him, and took him to Rewa by car and closed him into the room and abused him and also threatened to kill her. Complainant saved himself and ran away from the spot.

Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the applicant

has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant did not identify by the complainant. Applicant has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. There is no probability of applicant's absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the applicant.

After hearing both the parties, on perusal of record and considering the act of present applicant in the alleged crime, as well as looking to the specific allegation made against him, I am not inclined to allow this bail application.

Since, the offences involved in the case are not punishable with more Signature Not Verified SAN than 7 years of imprisonment and Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that the

Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL Date: 2021.04.22 15:59:52 IST 2 MCRC-17571-2021 offences for which punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term upto seven years, the accused may be kept in custody only if the condition enumerated in Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. exist. In Arnesh Kumar's case [(2014) 8 SCC 273] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"..........the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise

his further detention and release the accused......".

In view of the observations laid down in the judgment referred above, I deem fit to direct as under :

(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when t h e same is necessary and the applicant fails to cooperate in the investigation.

(ii) That, the applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

(iii) That, if the applicant-accused is arrested and he wants to file application for regular bail before learned trial Court, then he will be produced before the lower Court without any delay. Lower Court is also directed to consider his bail application as expeditiously as possible, preferably, on the same day.

Accordingly, in view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

R

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL Date: 2021.04.22 15:59:52 IST