Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 June, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-26114-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-26114-2021
(ASHOK YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Sachin Raghuvanshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This is first application filed by the applicants Ashok Yadav and Rampal Yadav
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime
No.82/2021 registered at Police Station-Jeron District-Nivari (old District-
Tikamgarh) (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 353 read with
section 34 of the IPC and Section 51(kha) Disaster Management Act and Section 3
of Mahamari Adhiniyam.
As per prosecution case, on 09.05.2021, complainant Meera Sahu was posted
as Anganwadi worker, Nivari. Due to Covid-19, Pandemic, she had gone with other
officials to the village, Luhurguva. She asked to the present applicants-accused about
health, due to Covid-19 Pandemic, applicants-accused abused them and tried to
assault them due to which they did not discharge their duties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants-accused have been
falsely implicated in this case. They have no previous criminal antecedent. No
custodial interrogation is required in this case. It is the time of Covid-19 Pandemic,
due to which social distancing is very necessary. Applicants-accused are bread earner
of their family, if they will be arrested then future of their family will be spoiled.
There is no probability of their absconding or tampering with the evidence.
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of anticipatory bail to
the applicants.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the prayer of the
applicants.
After hearing both the parties and the fact that at the time of incident
complainant was performing her duties, at that time, applicants-accused used
criminal force, so it is not proper case to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.
Signature Not Verified
SAN Since, the offences involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7
Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL
Date: 2021.06.03 17:29:58 IST
2 MCRC-26114-2021
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 Section 41(1)(b)
(ii) of Cr.P.C. exist. 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......".
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 applicants fail 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 are arrested and they wants to file an
application for regular before lower Court, then they 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.
Accordingly, in view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid
directions.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
V. JUDGE
vai
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL
Date: 2021.06.03 17:29:58 IST
