Sobhit Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7617 MP

                                                                          1                           MCRC-49445-2021
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                       MCRC No. 49445 of 2021
                                                          (SOBHIT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                     Jabalpur, Dated : 22-11-2021
                                            Ms. Smita Varma, Arora, learned counsel for the applicant.

                                            Shri Anshul Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.

T h e applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.455/2021 registered by Police Station Habibganj, District-Bhopal (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC.

It is alleged that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has not committed the offence in any manner. It is alleged that applicant is about 23 years of age. He has been made accused only on the basis of the statement of the other co-accused Amit Chourasiya recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from whom source the sims were purchased. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation. It is pointed out that the punishment in

the aforesaid offence is of seven years, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the application and submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender having similar nature cases registered against him. He is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and other co-accused are still absconding in the matter and are not co-operating in the investigation. In view of the aforesaid, he prays for dismissal of this anticipatory bail application.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated Signature Not Verified SAN below:-

Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2021.11.23 10:23:16 IST 2 MCRC-49445-2021 "7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evid ent 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 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

Signature Not Verified SAN arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by

Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2021.11.23 10:23:16 IST 3 MCRC-49445-2021 subclauses (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 vitalized. 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 he Magistrate as aforesaid."

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the punishment is of seven years for the aforesaid offence, and without commenting upon the merits of the case and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a local surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.

The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the concerning Police Station in first week of every month and is directed to cooperate in investigation. In case of failure to cooperate, the bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected automatically.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant/s will comply with all the terms and conditions of the Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2021.11.23 10:23:16 IST 4 MCRC-49445-2021 bond executed by him;

2. The applicant/s will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant/s will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4 . The applicant/s shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant/s indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.

5. The applicant/s will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant/s will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7 . The applicant/s will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

Application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

Sha

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2021.11.23 10:23:16 IST