Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-49997-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 49997 of 2021
(ANIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-10-2021
Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Kamlesh Tamrakar, learned Panel Lawyer 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.389/2021, registered at Police Station-
Moghatroad, District Khandwa (M.P.) for offences punishable under
Sections 188 and 505 (2) of IPC & section 67 of I.T. Act.
Prosecution story in brief is that on 25.09.2021 applicant posted an
obscene/filthy post against girls of a specific community.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no incriminating
evidence against the applicant. He has falsely been implicated in the matter.
His facebook account was hacked about which he informed the police prior
to the incident. The offences alleged against him are punishable not more than
07 years of imprisonment. 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. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
applicant relied upon the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by this Court in
M.Cr.C. No.11891/2018, order dated 20.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.2063/2020 and order dated 14.09.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.32895/2020.
Per-contra learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the said
application.
Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the
Signature Not
SAN
Verified parties and also considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the
Digitally signed by
KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Date: 2021.10.29
18:01:35 IST
2 MCRC-49997-2021
case, in view of this Court, although applicant is not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail, however, looking to the fact that the offences involved in the
case are punishable with not 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
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 kafeel
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Date: 2021.10.29
18:01:35 IST
3 MCRC-49997-2021
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Date: 2021.10.29
18:01:35 IST
