Sabbir Khan @ Kuddum Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3020 MP

                                                          1                           MCRC-30081-2021
                                The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                          MCRC-30081-2021
                                   (SABBIR KHAN @ KUDDUM KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 06-07-2021
                               Heard through Video Conferencing.

                               Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, counsel for the applicant.
                               Shri Akhilendra Singh, Government Advocate for the respondent/

State.

This first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of

anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.73/2021, registered at Police Station- Parwati District-Sehore (M.P.) for offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 61 (gha) M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant has started the development of agricultural land without obtaining colonizer license and statutory permission.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the owner of the land and performing the agricultural work regularly. He is aged

about 60 years. He has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. The applicant has neither cheated anyone, nor assured anyone to develop the colony. 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-operate 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 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

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 involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of Signature Not SAN Verified imprisonment and Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that the offences for Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.07.07 17:09:29 IST 2 MCRC-30081-2021 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 the 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 under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail before lower 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.

This petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions. C.C. as per rules.

                                                                   (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                                                                            JUDGE


                      kkc




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.07.07
17:09:29 IST