Jaipal Bagri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 794 MP

                                    1                              MCRC-11918-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-11918-2021
                   (JAIPAL BAGRI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

2
Jabalpur, Dated : 17-03-2021
      Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, learned G.A. for the respondent-State.

This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime

No.71/2021 registered at Police Station-Nagod, Dsitrict-Satna (MP), for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 294 and 506 of IPC.

As per prosecution case, complainant-Krishna Kumar Gupta, who is posted as Junior Engineer at M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Sitpura, lodged the written complaint against the present applicant stating therein that applicant did not pay off his electricity charges of Rs.9,870/- and Rs. 34,040/- of his wife. On 20.01.2021, at about 03:00 pm, when complainant along with other officials reached to the field of applicant for disconnecting his electricity connection but applicant restricted them to

discharge their duty by making abused and threatened them.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence. The applicant is Sarpanch of the Village and Panch have given Panchnama (annexure A/3) dated 16.02.2021 in which clearly mentioned that no electricity, no pond or well were found in the field of applicant. He has also filed the copies of electricity bills (annexure A/4) in which the name is mentioned as Smt. Sheetalabai W/o Janki Prasad and Jaypal Singh S/o Ramkaran and thus, both the electricity bills have been issued in the name of different persons. There is no evidence that at the time of incident complainant was discharging his official duty, therefore, no case is made out against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC.

2 MCRC-11918-2021 There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submits that all the allegations leveled against him are false and fictitious and if the applicant is arrested, it would adversely affect him mentality and 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 P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.

O n perusal of case diary, it appears that prima facie evidence is available against the present applicant and allegations are specific, complainant is government employee and at the time of incident he was discharging his official duty but applicant restricted him for the same by making abused and threatened him, therefore, complainant has filed a complaint against the present applicant and the case has been registered under the aforesaid Sections. Thus, 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 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 files an application under Section 439 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.

                                                         3                    MCRC-11918-2021
                             Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.
                             C.c. as per rules.

                                                             (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
                                                                         JUDGE


           sp
Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL
Date: 2021.03.19 17:43:21 +05'30'