Kaptan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8512 MP

                                  1                               CRA-7320-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 7320 of 2021
            (KAPTAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 09-12-2021
      Shri Samar Ghuraiya, learned counsel, for the appellants.

      Shri B.P.S. Chauhan, learned P.P, for the respondent /State.

None for the respondent No.2/complainant.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(for brevity 'the Atrocities Act') against the order dated 27.11.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Datia, MP, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected in connection with Crime No.279 of 2021 registered at Police Station Civil Lines district Datia for the offence under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of IPC and 3 (1) (da) and 3(1) (dha) of the Atrocities Act.

It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the appellant have been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence. It is submitted that except the offences registered under SC/ST Act all other

offences are bailable in nature. It is submitted that there was some financial transaction between the parties owing to which false case has been registered just to create pressure and take amount from the present appellant. As per FIR, as no specific allegation under SC/ST Act against the present appellant. It is submitted that it is case of no injury, therefore, no case is made out against the present applicant under the SC/ST Act. He has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in Cr.A. No. 3458/2021 (Ramhet Vs. State of M.P.), wherein in similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has extended the benefit of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as the confinement is less than seven years.So far as maintainability of this appeal is concerned, they have relied upon the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Atendra Singh Rawat vs. State of M.P. being Cr.A. No.7295/2018 whereby the 2 CRA-7320-2021 coordinate Bench has considered the amended provisions of the Act and also considered Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and has allowed the application. He is ready to abide with all the conditions which may be imposed by this court while considering this bail application.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application

stating that there is specific bar provided under Section 18 of the Act for grant of anticipatory bail. He has read over the statement of complainant and prayed for rejection of this appeal.

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.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a 3 CRA-7320-2021 conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police

officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by subclauses (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 of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalized. This provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1)Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by he Magistrate as aforesaid."

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and considering the judgment rendered by coordinate bench of this court in 4 CRA-7320-2021 Cr.A.No.3458 of 2021 on 11.06.2021 and the law laid down by coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Attender Singh Rawat (Supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer/trial Court, as the case may be with submission of written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic and they will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant:-

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be and

7.The appellant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police 5 CRA-7320-2021 Station about his residential addresses in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

Application stands allowed and stands disposed of. CC as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

(LJ*)

LOKENDRA JAIN 2021.12.13 12:31:40 +05'30'