Jyoti Kadam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6448 MP

                                                                          1
                                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                                          BEFORE
                                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                                  ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20143 of 2022

                                              Between:-
                                              JYOTI KADAM W/O LATE SUMIT KADAM , AGED
                                              ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O
                                              BRINDAVAN NAGAR, MOTHER TERASA KATANGI
                                              ROAD, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                                              (BY MS. ANJALI SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE )

                                              AND

                                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                              POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES DISTRICT-REWA
                                              M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                                              (BY SHRI MANAS VERMA, PANEL LAWYER)

                                            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 h e applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.78/2022 registered by Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa, District Rewa (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the case and has not committed any offence in any manner. The allegation against the present applicant is that she has taken money from the complainant to procure appointment to the complainant. 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

Signature Not Verified bail. On these grounds, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. SAN

P er contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the application Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2022.04.30 10:45:34 IST

stating that the applicant is having one more case registered against her of the

similar nature, therefore, prays for dismissal of the 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 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2022.04.30 10:45:34 IST

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 envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by he Magistrate as aforesaid."

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 her 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 and direct thus :

(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the Signature Not Verified

same is necessary and the applicant fails to cooperate in the investigation. SAN

Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2022.04.30 10:45:34 IST

(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 Sha

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE Date: 2022.04.30 10:45:34 IST