Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-34836-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-34836-2021
(GOVIND YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 02-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/ State.
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.99/2021, registered at Police Station- Bamnora,
District-Chhatarpur (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 465 and
468 of the IPC.
As per prosecution case, it alleged against the applicant that he being
Computer Operator at Genhu Kharidi Kendra, Sevar with an intend to commit
forgery registered 12 tenants out of 25 for selling their wheat on the basis of
forged/incorrect documents.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was
working as Computer Operator and registered the tenants on the basis of
documents produced by them. Applicant is Government servant and his
custodial interrogation is not required in the matter. Offences alleged against
him are triable by Magistrate First Class and punishable up to 7 years. The
applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is further argued that the
applicant has no criminal past. The principle of Arnesh Kumar's case are
also applicable to the case of applicant. The applicant is ready and willing to
co-operative the investigation agency and furnish appropriate surety as may
be imposed on him.
Per-contra learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposed the
application and submitted that applicant himself stated in reply to the show-
cause notice issued to him about his act. Offences alleged against him are of
Signature Not
SAN
Verified serious in nature, therefore, he may not be released on anticipatory bail.
Digitally signed by
MRS RASHMI
CHIKANE PASWAN
Date: 2021.09.03
10:53:54 IST
2 MCRC-34836-2021
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 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
t h e same is necessary and the applicants fails to cooperate in the
investigation.
(ii) That, the applicants should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If the applicants cooperates in the investigation then the
occasion of their arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, if the applicants-accused persons are arrested and they wants
to file application under Section 437 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 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
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
MRS RASHMI
CHIKANE PASWAN
Date: 2021.09.03
10:53:54 IST
3 MCRC-34836-2021
RC
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
MRS RASHMI
CHIKANE PASWAN
Date: 2021.09.03
10:53:54 IST
