Subhash Mohan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2114 MP

                                   1                         MCRC-10529-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-10529-2021
                 (SUBHASH MOHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

8
Jabalpur, Dated : 04-06-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.
      Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State.

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.247/2020 registered at Police Station-Ganj, District-Betul, (MP), for the offence punishable under Section 431 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act.

T he matter in brief is that on 28.05.2020, Assistant Engineer Nagar Palika Parishad, Betul has lodged the complaint report regarding that the information was revealed by Shri Savanya Sheshkar, Former Parshad Subhash Ward, Betul and Collector Office, Betul through a letter that the encroachment has been made by unknown person at Subhash Ward

Hamlapur from Main Road to the Machna Riven at WBM Road. On such information, the Revenue Department and Nagar Palika Parishad, Betul jointly inspected the spot i.e. WBM Road and found that the applicant Subhas Pandey has dig out that road and caused damaged to such road.

Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of his locality and he is former Parshad and due to the political pressure he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has no criminal past. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the applicant.

2 MCRC-10529-2021 After hearing both the parties, on perusal of record and considering the act of present applicant in the alleged crime, as well as looking to the specific allegation made against him, I am not inclined to allow this bail application.

Since, the offences 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 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 t h e 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 an application for regular 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.

Accordingly, in view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) V. JUDGE 3 MCRC-10529-2021 Pallavi

Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2021.06.04 17:35:13 +05'30'