Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sonam Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 July, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-24235-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-24235-2021
(SMT. SONAM JAIN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri B.K. Shukla, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Akhlendra Singh, learned G.A. for the respondent/ State.
This first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Crime No.131/2021, registered at Police Station- Bina,
District-Sagar (M.P.) for offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC
and Section 399(ga) of Nagar Palika Adhiniyam.
A s per prosecution case, the applicant along with other co-accused
persons developed illegal colony without obtaining license or authority from
the competent authority and sold the piece of land (plot) to the purchaser by
suppressing the required information.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants
have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the crime
in question. The applicants have not misguided to any one. They were
owner of the said land and after diverting the same sold the part of the land to
the purchaser, who were very well aware with the fact. It is further argued
that the applicant has no criminal past. The principle of Arnesh Kumar's
case are also applicable to the case of applicant. The applicant is ready and
willing to co-operative the investigation agency and furnish appropriate surety
as may be imposed on him.
Per-contra learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the said
application submitting that allegations levelled against the applicants are
specific and therefore, they may not be released on anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined
to allow this bail application. However, looking to the fact that the offence
Signature Not Verified
SAN
involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of
Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.07.06 11:35:44 IST
2 MCRC-24235-2021
imprisonment and Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that the 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. exists. 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......".
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 applicants fails to cooperate in the
investigation.
(ii) That, the applicants should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If the applicants cooperates in the investigation then the
occasion of their arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, if the applicants-accused persons are arrested and they wants
to file application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail before lower
Court, then they will be produced before the lower Court without any delay.
Lower Court is also directed to consider their bail application as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, on the same day.
This petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
kkc
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.07.06 11:35:44 IST
