Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15318 of 2022
Between:-
VIKRAM SINGH S/O KUBER SINGH , AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE
BANSHIYA, P.S.BANSHIYA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI M.K.MISHRA, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION BANSHIYA POLICE STATION
BANSHIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PANDEY, GOVT. ADVOCATE )
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail.
T he applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.07/2022 registered by
Police Station - Banshiya, Chhatarpur (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section
379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the Mines and Mineral Act.
It is submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and
he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is alleged that on 14.02.2022,
the police authority seized Tractor and Trolley No.ALT4000 from Kuber Singh
who is the father of the applicant. It is alleged that illegal transportation of Sand
was done by the aforesaid vehicle. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle. He filed an application for
release of the vehicle before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court vide
order dated 2.02.2022 granted interim custody of the vehicle to the applicant, but
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the police did not comply with the order of the Trial Court, therefore, applicant
submitted an application to the Trial Court making complaint against the In-charge
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.04.05 12:10:50 IST
police Station. It is submitted that as the applicant made a complaint before the
learned Trial Court, therefore, the present applicant has been made accused in the
case. It is submitted that the applicant is not involved in the present case nor he
was present at the spot but as he is the owner of the vehicle he has been made
accused in the present case. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. The applicant is ready to abide
by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting
anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prays for granting anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
P er contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the application
stating that there are specific allegations against the present applicant; therefore,
prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:-
"7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C.,
it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or
which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be
arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such
person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A
police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further
satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from
committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the
case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the
offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any
manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement,
threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.04.05 12:10:50 IST
such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court
whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions,
which one may reach based on facts.
7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts
and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a
conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while
making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to
record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must
put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What
purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after
these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as
enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be
exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason
to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused
has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has
to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the
more purposes envisaged by subclauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of
Section 41 Cr.P.C.
9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Aimed to
avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the
accused requires to be vitalized. This provision makes it clear that
in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under
Section 41(1)Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue notice
directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and
time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police
officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies
with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons
to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is
necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as
Signature Not Verified
envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall
SAN
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
be subject to the same scrutiny by he Magistrate as aforesaid."
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.04.05 12:10:50 IST
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
deems it appropriate to disposed of the bail application. In view of the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the
applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the
applicant cooperated in the investigation and the punishment is of seven years for
the aforesaid offence, then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.
In view of above and considering the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), this Court is inclined to allow the
application subject to verification of the fact that the applicant is the first
offender and direct thus :
(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 cooperate in the investigation then the occasion of
his arrest should not arise.
W i t h the aforesaid directions, the present anticipatory bail
application stands disposed of.
Let E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.04.05 12:10:50 IST
