Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 719 MP
Judgement Date : 15 March, 2021
1 MCRC-4363-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-4363-2021
(KASTURA BAI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-03-2021
Shri Amit Dubey, 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.628/2020 registered at Police Station-Ganpatinaka Rewa, District- Burhanpur, (MP), for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120-B of IPC.
As per the prosecution, the applicants have done the agreements for selling of plots with complainant party and received the advance but have not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant and when complainant party went to the spot then they have found that some other persons are having possession of the said land. It has also been alleged that, the applicant have sold a plot to several persons by executing the agreements.
Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is the old person and is suffering for various serious illness. Nothing is required to be recovered from the possession of the applicant. He has no previous criminal antecedent. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the applicant.
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
Signature Not allegation made against him, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. SAN Verified
Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL Date: 2021.03.15 17:35:01 IST 2 MCRC-4363-2021 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 application under Section 439 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. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
R
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
ROSHNI SINGH
PATEL
Date: 2021.03.15
17:35:01 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!