Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aditya Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-27771-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-27771-2021
(ADITYA PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Dharmendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, Govt. Advocate, 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.89/2021 registered at Police Station Bina, District-Sagar (MP), for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.02.2021, complainant/Geeta
lodged a report alleging that her love marriage was solemnized with
applicant/accused on 08.04.2011. They have been blessed with one child.
Thereafter, applicant/accused humiliated, tortured and abused her with
filthy language. Applicant/accused also took her salary and threatened to
kill her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case. Accused/applicant has no previous
criminal antecedent. There is no probability of his absconding or
tampering with the prosecution evidence. There is no probability to
repeat the offence. No custodial interrogation is required in this case. It
is the time of COVID-19 Pandemic, therefore, social distancing is very
necessary. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant. He further submits that all the
allegations leveled against him are false and fictitious and if the
Signature Not Verified
SAN applicant is arrested, it would adversely affect him mentality and
Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL
Date: 2021.06.21 17:01:47 IST
2 MCRC-27771-2021
psychology both and his family members would suffer irreparable loss.
He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 .
Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State
opposes the bail application.
On perusal of case diary, it appears that prima facie evidence is
available against the present applicant and allegations are specific
therefore, prosecutrix lodged the report against the present applicant and
the case has been registered under the aforesaid Section. Thus,
considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to the applicant. However, keeping in mind the view taken by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), this Court
is inclined to direct thus:-
However, keeping in mind the view taken by Hon'ble the Apex
Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), this Court is inclined to
direct thus:-
(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 his arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, if the applicant-accused files an application under
Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail before lower Court, then same
shall be considered expeditiously as soon as possible, preferably, on the
same day.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.
C.c. as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL
Date: 2021.06.21 17:01:47 IST
3 MCRC-27771-2021
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
R
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL
Date: 2021.06.21 17:01:47 IST
