Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-2038-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-2038-2021
(DINESH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
8
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-03-2021
Shri R.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, G.A. for the respondent-State.
This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime
No.570/2020 registered at Police Station-Niwadi, District-Niwadi, (MP), for
the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 294, 506, 195(A), and
34 of IPC.
As per the prosecution story, on 20.12.2020 at about 9 AM when the
complainant was inside in his house then applicants armed with farsa and
danda entered in his house for doing forcefully compromise in a case which
was registered by the complainant against the applicants in the Police Station-
Niwadi vide Crime No. 564/2020 for the offence punishable under Section
323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC. On that, complainant refused to do the same,
then applicants started abusing complainant and also committed marpeet with
him.
Learned counsel for the accused/applicants submits that the applicants
have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant No. 1 is real brother of
complainant. Dispute arose due to some trivial matter between both the
parties. Applicants have pressurized the complainant for compromise. Trial
will take time to conclude. There is no probability of their absconding or
tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the
applicants prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the
applicant.
Signature Not After hearing both the parties, on perusal of record and considering the
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
ROSHNI SINGH
PATEL
Date: 2021.03.16
17:26:04 IST
2 MCRC-2038-2021
act of present applicants 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
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: 2021.03.16
17:26:04 IST
