Ripusudan Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4890 MP

                                   1                          MCRC-42815-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-42815-2021
           (RIPUSUDAN RAWAT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

1
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, Advocate for the applicants.
      Shri Akhilendra Singh, G.A. for the respondent-State.

This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.690/2020 registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Chhatarpur, (MP), for the offence punishable under Section 379, 414 of IPC and Section 21 of M.P. Ret Adhiniyam, 2019.

The matter in brief is that on 09.02.2020 Police of police station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur seized a Tractor bearing Registration No. MP-16-AD-2101 in which illegal sand was transported on the alleged tractor without having license or authority. The applicant no. 1 is owner of the alleged vehicle and applicant no. 2 is driver.

Learned counsel for the accused/applicants submits that the applicant have been falsely implicated in this case only on the instance of some ante persons and police officials. Applicants are the owner and driver of the alleged vehicle. There is no direct evidence available on the record against this applicants-accused. They have no criminal antecedent. Apart from this, the concerned police, who has seized the vehicle of the applicant, has informed to the Collector, Chhatarupur, who imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon the applicants and in compliance of the same, applicants have deposited the same. There is no probability of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Learned GA opposes the prayer of the applicants.

2 MCRC-42815-2021 After hearing both the parties, on perusal of record and considering the act of present applicants in the alleged crime, as well as looking to the specific allegation made against them, I am not inclined to allow this bail application.

Since, 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 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......".

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 applicants fail to cooperate in the investigation.

(ii) That, the applicants should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicants cooperate in the investigation then the occasion of their arrest should not arise.

(iii) That, if the applicants-accused are arrested and they want to file application under Section 439 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.

Accordingly, in view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed off C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA 2021.09.01 18:00:31 +05'30'