Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Baleja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-30161-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-30161-2021
(BHARAT BALEJA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sidharth Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, 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 applicant, as he is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.633/2021, registered at Police Station- Kolgawan
District Satna (M.P.) for offences punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of
the IPC.
As per prosecution case, it is alleged against the applicant that he along
with other co-accused persons cheated the complainant Kamlesh Prasad Pal
and dishonestly induces him to deposit an amount of Rs.74,900/- and
Rs.75,000/- in the Bank account of co-accused namely Shubham Chourasiya,
on the pretext of supply of Oxygen Concentrator.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been
made accused on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused
Shubham Chourasiya whereby he has stated that on the instruction of the
applicant he has given Bank account number of Canara Bank. The applicant
has no direct and indirect nexus with the co-accused. The offences alleged
against the applicant are punishable less than seven years imprisonment and
co-accused persons have already been released on regular bail. Therefore,
applicant be released on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposed the application and
submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, hence, he
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
SAN
Verified involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of
Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.07.27
15:10:54 IST
2 MCRC-30161-2021
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 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
kkc
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.07.27
15:10:54 IST
