Madhya Pradesh High Court
Margoob Alam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-40332-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-40332-2021
(MARGOOB ALAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicant.
Ku. Kamlesh Tamrakar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/
State.
This second 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.100/2021, registered at Police Station- Parvati,
Ashta, District-Sehore (M.P.) for offences punishable under Section 339-C of
Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, 1961.
The first application was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2021
passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.35412/2021.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that applicant is co-owner of the land
bearing Khasra Nos.18/3, 51/1, 52/2 and 69 area measuring 0.405, 0.187,
0.425 hectare situated at village Alipur, Tehsil Ashta, District Sehore.
Applicant developed illegal colony without obtaining statutory permission
from the concerned authority and sold the piece of land to the purchaser.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is the
owner of the land and he has not misguided anyone. It is further argued that
applicant has no criminal past. The principle of Arnesh Kumar's case are
also applicable to the case of applicant as the offence alleged against him are
punishable not more than 7 years of imprisonment. 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 opposes the said
application and submits that applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory
bail as his earlier application for anticipatory bail has already been rejected.
Signature Not
SAN
Verified Having considered the rival submission of both the parties, I am not
Digitally signed by
KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Date: 2021.10.01
10:41:48 IST
2 MCRC-40332-2021
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
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
kafeel
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Date: 2021.10.01
10:41:48 IST
