Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hariom @ Chain Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 June, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 CRA-3025-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3025-2021
(HARIOM @ CHAIN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. L.N. Sakle, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
None for the respondent No.2 although notice has been served.
This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed for grant
of anticipatory bail to appellant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection
with Crime No.05/2021 for offences under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506 of the
Indian Pena Code and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per case of the prosecution, the appellant was using SIM Card
which was registered in the name of Sawan, who is nephew of the
complainant Devaki Bai and when Sawan deactivated his SIM Card, the
appellant entered into his house and after abusing him and his family members
committed "marpeet" with Devaki Bai.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and the offence alleged against him are minor in nature; therefore, bar
contained under Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. Act is not attracted in this case
and his custodial interrogation is also not required. Hence, appellant be
enlarged on bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the bail
application and submitted that looking to the bar contained under Section 18
of the S.C/S.T. Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined
to allow this appeal. However, looking to the fact that the offence involved in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of imprisonment and
Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH
Date: 2021.07.01 12:04:22 IST
2 CRA-3025-2021
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 appellant fails to cooperate in the investigation.
(ii) That, the appellant should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If the appellant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion
of his arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, if the appellant 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.
The appeal is finally disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
julie
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH
Date: 2021.07.01 12:04:22 IST
