Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surya Pratap @ Halke Raja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-40396-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-40396-2021
(SURYA PRATAP @ HALKE RAJA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-10-2021
Shri Ratna Bharat Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/
State.
Case diary is available.
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.255/2021, registered at Police Station- Shahgarh
District Sagar (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 353,
332, 186, 427, 506, 34 of IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public
Property Act and Section 3/4 of Medical Protection Act.
Prosecution story in brief is that on dated 28.6.2021 applicant abused,
assaulted and threatened the complainant Dr. Uma Shankar Pandey when he
was discharging his official duty at Primary Health Center Shahgarh. The
applicant has also damaged the public property.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submits that at the time of
incident complainant refused to treat the child namely Abhay Raja due to
which he died and a quarrel was occurred in between the complainant and the
applicant. Complainant has lodged false and fabricated report against the
applicant. He has not committed any offence. The principles of Arnesh
Kumar's case are also applicable to the case of applicant. The applicant is
read y and willing to co-operate 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 and submits that the applicant assaulted the complainant when he
was discharging his official duty and also damaged the public property,
therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Signature Not
SAN
Verified Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.10.27
10:59:43 IST
2 MCRC-40396-2021
parties and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is not inclined to allow this bail application. However, looking to the
fact that 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
s even 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
the 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
application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail 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.
This petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Signature Not kkc
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.10.27
10:59:43 IST
3 MCRC-40396-2021
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.10.27
10:59:43 IST
