Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhai Kumhar (Prajapati) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-37700-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-37700-2020
(KANHAI KUMHAR (PRAJAPATI) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
19
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri S.D. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, G.A. for the respondent/State.
This first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.232/2020 registered at Police Station-Civil Line, Distt.-Satna, (M.P.) for
offence punishable under Sections 379, 414 of the IPC and Section 21 r/w
section 4 of Mines (Vikas Avam Viniyaman) Act, 1957 and Sectino 194 (1)
r/w Section 113 of M.V. Act.
The allegation against the present applicant is that the Morum was
transporting illegally from his truck bearing Registration No. MP-09-HG/8150.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant-accused
has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no relation with the aforesaid
crime. The applicant was having valid permit for transportation of gitti
(morum) from Chhatarpur to Satna and also the valid documents of the
alleged vehicle. He is the registered owner of the said vehicle. He has no
previous criminal antecedent. Investigation is complete. No further custodial
interrogation is required in this case. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, there is
every possibility of being infected. So, social distancing is very necessary.
There is no chance of absconding of applicant and his tampering with the
prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant prays for
grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. He further submits that all the
allegations leveled against him are false and fictitious and if he is arrested, it
would adversely affect him both mentally and psychologically. He also relied
on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar
2 MCRC-37700-2020
Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State
opposes the said application.
Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.
O n perusal of case diary, it appears that prima facie evidence is
available against the applicant-accused and allegations are specific therefore,
report has been lodged against the this applicant and the case has been
registered under the aforesaid Section. Thus, considering the nature of
offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-accused.
However, keeping in mind the view taken by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), this Court is inclined to direct thus:-
.......................
"..........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......".
Therefore, 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 he cooperate in the investigation then the occasion of his
arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, if the applicant files an application under Section 437 of
Cr.P.C. for regular bail before lower Court, then same shall be considered
expeditiously as soon as possible, preferably, on the same day.
Accordingly, this petition stands disposed off with the aforesaid
directions in regards of applicant.
C.C. as per rules.
3 MCRC-37700-2020
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Pallavi
PALLAVI SINHA
2021.08.03 17:16:31 +05'30'
