Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash Chourasiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-25657-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-25657-2021
(OMPRAKASH CHOURASIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 31-05-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Punit Shroti, P.L. 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.71/2021 registered at Police Station-Mahrajpur, District-Chhatarpur, (MP),
for the offence punishable under Section 379, 411 of IPC and Section 4/21 of
Mine Mining Act & Section 18 of M.P. Illegal Transport and Storage Act.
The matter in brief is that on 13.10.2020, Tehsildar, Maharajpur seized
a Tractor Trolly bearing Registration No. M.P. 16 AC 9685 loaded with sand
whose proceedings was done on 24.03.2021 by Collector, Chhatarpur on the
basis of which applicant is made an accused in the present case.
Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in this case and investigating agency has arrested
the applicant without conducting proper investigation. As per prosecution,
seized trolley was found in unclaimed condition and police did not saw
anyone filling the sand in that trolley. There is no direct evidence available on
the record against this applicant-accused. Applicant is 52 years old aged
person and is single bread of his family. There is no probability of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned
counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of
the applicant.
After hearing both the parties, on perusal of record and considering the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
act of present applicant in the alleged crime, as well as looking to the specific
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.05.31 17:46:42 IST
2 MCRC-25657-2021
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 an
application for regular 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)
V. JUDGE
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.05.31 17:46:42 IST
