Nipendra Singh Bhadouriya @ Rinku ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 985 MP

                                   1                             CRA-2017-2021
          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     CRA-2017-2021
(NIPENDRA SINGH BHADOURIYA @ RINKU BHADOURIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
                                     OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 23-03-2021
         Shri D.S. Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant.

         Shri Sangam Jain, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-

State.

Matter is heard through video conferencing.

This first criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed against the order dated 04/3/2021 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Bhind in Bail Application No.334/2021 by which the anticipatory bail application of the appellant was rejected.

Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.02/2021 registered at Police Station AJK Bhind, District Bhind for offences under Sections 323, 294, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act).

Learned counsel for the appellant Nipendra Singh Bhadouriya @ Rinku Bhadouriya submits that appellant has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated. There is no allegation on the appellant that he has committed the said offence only because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, therefore, no offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., [Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (criminal) No.3585 of 2020)]. It is further submitted that appellant is the permanent resident of BTI Road, Police Station Dehat, District Bhind and in case of grant of bail, there 2 CRA-2017-2021 is no chance of his absconsion. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prayed to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellant or directions be issued in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC

273. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the

prayer and prayed to reject this criminal appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. However, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), it is directed that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the petitioner does not cooperate in the investigation. The petitioner should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the petitioner cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:-

"7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to 3 CRA-2017-2021 a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to

(e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C.

9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A Cr.P.C. aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalised. This provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid."

In view of above, present criminal appeal is disposed of in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra).

Prosecution is hereby directed to comply with the direction issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) in its letter & spirit.

E-copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.

                                              (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
  ALOK KUMAR
  2021.03.23                                             JUDGE
  17:31:27
  +05'30'
  11.0.8

AKS