Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu Kushwaha vs The State Of M.P on 24 March, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-11349-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-11349-2021
(PAPPU KUSHWAHA Vs THE STATE OF M.P)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-03-2021
Shri S.K. Gangrade, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, G.A. 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.53/2021 registered at Police Station-Sohagpur, District-
Hoshangabad, (MP), for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC
and 3 of Lok Sampatti Nuksan Nivaran Adhiniyam.
As per the prosecution story, 16.01.2021 when Nayab Tehsildar of
Sohagpur was inspecting that area. During the inspection, it is found that
applicant/accused/r ISR tractor trolley bearing registration No. MP05-
AH3326 was transporting sand without any valid permit. Tractor trolley
with sand was seized.
Lear ned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. No tractor trolley was
seized from the possession of applicant/accused. At the time of incident,
the tractor construction of work was going on at Gram Panchayat
Bamhori Khurd. Sand was transporting for the purpose of CC road which
is constructed by Gram Panchayat. So no case is made out again him.
Applicant/accused has no previous criminal antecedent. Trial will take
time to conclude. 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 counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the
Signature
SAN
Verified
Not applicant.
Digitally signed by
ROSHNI SINGH
PATEL
Date: 2021.03.25
13:16:42 IST
2 MCRC-11349-2021
After hearing both the parties, on perusal of record and considering
the act of present applicant that present applicant/accused was
transporting sand without valid permit, so prima facia case is made out
against him, 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 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 is arrested and he wants to
file application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail before
lower Court, then he will be produced before the lower Court without
a n y delay. Lower Court is also directed to consider his bail
application as expeditiously as possible, preferably, on the same day.
Signature Not
SAN
Verified Accordingly, in view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed off with
Digitally signed by
ROSHNI SINGH
PATEL
Date: 2021.03.25
13:16:42 IST
3 MCRC-11349-2021
the aforesaid directions.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
R
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
ROSHNI SINGH
PATEL
Date: 2021.03.25
13:16:42 IST
