Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-56487-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 56487 of 2021
(SHUBHAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Indore, Dated : 29-11-2021
Shri Jitendra Purohit, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Viraj Godha, learned G.A. for the respondent/ State.
This first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.1379/2021, registered at Police Station- Lasudiya,
District- Indore (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 384, 420 and
34 of IPC.
A s per prosecution case, applicant alongwith other three accused
persons styling themselves as a Journalist went to the complainant's dhaba
and took photographs of his dhaba. When he opposed, they threatened him
with dire consequences and thereafter demanded money from him.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
not committed any offence. He has been made accused only on the basis of
the fact that the amount of Rs.2,000/- has been transferred in his Paytm
account. FIR was lodged about month after from the date of incident without
any reasonable cause. There is no direct evidence of the nature to establish
close proximity of the applicant. It is further argued that the applicant has no
criminal past. The principle of Arnesh Kumar's case are also applicable to
the case of applicant. The applicant is ready and willing to co-operative the
investigation agency and furnish appropriate surety as may be imposed on
him.
Per-contra learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the said
application submitting that investigation is going on and custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required in the matter as co-accused
specifically mentioned his name in his memorandum statement recroded
Signature Not Verified
SAN
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and therefore, he may not be released
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2021.11.30 10:17:50 IST
2 MCRC-56487-2021
on anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined
to allow this bail application. However, looking to the fact that the offence
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. exists. 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......".
Therefore, 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 applicants fails to cooperate in the
investigation.
(ii) That, the applicants should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If the applicants cooperates in the investigation then the
occasion of their arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, if the applicant-accused person is arrested and he wants to
file application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail before lower
Court, then they will be produced before the lower Court without any delay.
Lower Court is also directed to consider their bail application as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, on the same day.
This petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
C.C. as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2021.11.30 10:17:50 IST
3 MCRC-56487-2021
JUDGE
Vibha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2021.11.30 10:17:50 IST
