Harvindra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3674 MP

                                                          1                           MCRC-32822-2021
                                The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                          MCRC-32822-2021
                                        (HARVINDRA YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 28-07-2021
                               Heard through Video Conferencing.

                               Shri B. J. Chourasiya, 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 under apprehension of his

arrest in connection with Crime No.49/2021, registered at Police Station- Kishangarh District Chhatarpur (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 294, 354 & 506 of the IPC.

A s per prosecution story, on the date of the incident when the complainant was going to out side of her house to answer call of nature, applicant came there and caught hold her hand and outrage her modesty.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that mobile shop of the applicant is situated near the house of complainant and complainant used to take goods from his shop on credit, when applicant demanded

money, she denied and a false report has been lodged against applicant, therefore, he be released on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposed the application and submitted that applicant had outrage modesty of a lady. Offence alleged against his is of serious in nature, hence, 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 Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.07.29 11:18:17 IST 2 MCRC-32822-2021 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.

( i i ) 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: 2021.07.29
11:18:17 IST