Madhya Pradesh High Court
Himanshu Soni vs The State Of M.P on 12 July, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-30099-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-30099-2021
(HIMANSHU SONI Vs THE STATE OF M.P)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 12-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available with the Government Advocate.
This is the first application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.296/2020 registered at Police Station Harpalpur
District Chhatarpur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379
and 414 of the IPC.
As per prosecution, the applicant along with other co-accused person
transported sand (ret) in his vehicle bearing registration No. UP-91-4431
unauthorizedly without having prior permission.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
owner of the vehicle alleged to be used in transporting of stolen sand. He is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the
application and submitted that applicant being the owner of the vehicle used
in the offence and is main accused. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of
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
involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of
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
Signature Not Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. exists. In Arnesh Kumar's case [(2014) 8
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2021.07.14
12:38:31 IST
2 MCRC-30099-2021
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 their 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
vinay
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2021.07.14
12:38:31 IST
