Gajendra Singh Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6648 MP

                                    1                        MCRC-50773-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-50773-2021
            (GAJENDRA SINGH BUNDELA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Jabalpur, Dated : 22-10-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pawan
Gujar, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Smt. Priyanka Mishra, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

This is first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by

the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.155/2021, registered at Police Station-Badegaon, District- Tikamgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 407 and 120-B of the IPC.

A s per prosecution case, on 07.08.2021, complainant-Ramsewak Sharma lodged the FIR against the present applicant and other co- accused stating therein that 711 sacks of moong dal weighing about 354 quintals amounting to Rs.19 lakhs was loaded in a truck bearing

registration No.HR-38-V-2859 and was sent to Delhi after being loaded from Pipariya by the complainant through Hodal Palwal Transport. Co- accused Harichandra was driver of said vehicle. It is alleged that the goods which was loaded in the truck was caught embezzled in the vicinity of Badagaon from Powertrac Tractor by the present applicant and co-accused. The tractor belongs to present applicant. The goods have been seized from the possession of other co-accused person.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence is made out against the present applicant. The applicant has not committed any breach of trust. Nothing is to be recovered from his possession. The allegations levelled against the present applicant is false and vague. The 2 MCRC-50773-2021 offence involved in the case are not having more than seven years of imprisonment to which guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2014 AIR SC 2756 will be applicable. With the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Per-contra, learned G.A. for respondent/State opposes the bail application.

Heard and perused the case diary.

On perusal of case diary, prima facie, it appears that a named FIR has been registered against the present applicant. The material annexed with the case diary disclose specific role of the applicant in the alleged crime. The applicant has also previous criminal past of four other cases.

Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, 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 to 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......".

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 the same is necessary and the applicant fails to cooperate in the 3 MCRC-50773-2021 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 is arrested and he wants to file appropriate application for regular bail before trial Court, then he will be produced before the trial Court without any delay. Trial Court is also directed to consider his 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.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2021.10.27 18:11:52 +05'30'