Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirsiya Kevat vs Ashok Kumar Verma on 26 October, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-42876-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-42876-2021
(NIRSIYA KEVAT AND OTHERS Vs ASHOK KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-10-2021
Shri Jai Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants.
None for respondent No.1, in spite service of notice.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/
State.
This first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are apprehending their arrest in
connection with private complaint case No.1200/2012, for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 120(B)/34 of IPC.
As per complaint filed under Section 200, 202 of Cr.P.C., the applicant
knowingly the fact that he is not the owner of land bearing Khasra No.62/1
area 0.65 acre situated at Sidhi Kala executed an agreement to sale the same
to the complainant for consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that complainant
himself was not willing to purchase the property and there were so many
omissions and contradictions in the statement of the complainant himself.
The applicant has been made accused only on the basis of false and frivolous
grounds. The offence alleged against him is not punishable more than seven
years, therefore, the principles of Arnesh Kumar's case are also applicable
to the case of applicant. The applicant is ready and willing to co-operate the
investigation agency and furnish appropriate surety as may be imposed on
him.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State submits that this case is
arising out of a private complaint case and he is not aware about the facts of
the case.
No one is appears on behalf of the complainant/ objector in spite
service of notice.
Signature Not
SAN
Verified Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.10.27
10:59:44 IST
2 MCRC-42876-2021
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
10:59:44 IST
3 MCRC-42876-2021
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.10.27
10:59:44 IST
