Aashutosh Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 955 MP

                                   1                           MCRC-10076-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-10076-2021
                (AASHUTOSH PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Jabalpur, Dated : 22-03-2021
      Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Shri Atul Choudhari, learned counsel for the objector. This is first bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.07/2021 registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Jabalpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 356, 323, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

As per prosecution case, on 08.01.2021, at about 05:30 pm, when the complainant and her two daughters were in the house, present applicant reached in front of their house and started abusing them. On restricting, the applicant has entered into the house and assaulted the complainant by banging her onto the wall. On intervention by the daughter, the applicant has also hurt

her. In the meantime, co-accused (mother of present applicant) also reached there and she abused and scuffled with the complainant and her daughters. Co-accused used her fists to hurt the complainant and another victim.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case due to previous dispute. In fact, the complainant side has encroached on the public road which complaint was made by the applicant to Municipal Corporation as well as CM Helpline and on account of which, the complainant side had grudge with the applicant. Accused side has also filed a complaint against the complainant side before the same police station bearing Crime No.08/2021. No offence under Section 452 of IPC is made out in the case and rest are bailable in nature. Besides the above, he submits that applicant is breadwinner of his family and there is no criminal antecedent against him. Applicant is ready to abide all the conditions 2 MCRC-10076-2021 as imposed by the Court. With the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant prays for allowing the bail application.

O n the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the objector opposes the said bail application submitting that allegations are specific against the applicant as applicant and other co-

accused entered into the house of complainant and assaulted them. It is further submitted by the objector's counsel that the applicant is political influencing person and if he has not been arrested, he will cause mental agony to the complainant side and also affect the prosecution case. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of this bail application.

Heard.

O n perusal, prima facie, it appears that allegation against the present applicant is that on account of some easement disputes, he entered into the house of complainant and hurt the complainant as well as her daughter. He also abused and intimidated them. On perusal of MLC, injuries are also found on the body of complainant and her daughters.

Looking to the specific allegations made against the applicant, I am not inclined to allow this anticipatory 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 3 MCRC-10076-2021

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.

In Cr.A No. 8795/2018 (Mangaram & another Vs. State of MP), passed by Gwalior Bench of this High Court, similar view has been taken by

the Court in the light of pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Arnesh Kumar's case.

This petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions. C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2021.03.23 16:38:10 +05'30'