Smt. Urmila Sen vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1801 MP

                                                                   1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                         ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 785 of 2022

                                        Between:-
                                1.      SMT. URMILA SEN W/O KAMLESH KUMAR SEN ,
                                        AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
                                        WARD NO. 37 SHAKTI NAGAR COLONY P,S, CIVIL
                                        LINE CHHATARPUR (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                2.      JITU SEN S/O SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR SEN , AGED
                                        ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LAW STUDENT
                                        WARD NO. 37 SHAKTI NAGAR COLONY P.S CIVIL
                                        LINE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                 .....APPELLANT
                                        (BY SHRI BRAMHANAND PANDEY, ADVOCATE)

                                        AND

                                1.      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                                        STATION ARAKSHI KENDRA CIVIL LINE
                                        CHHATARPUR       (M.P) C H H ATA R P U R (M.P)
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                2.      RAMKISHAN BANSKAR S/O SHRI RAM PRASAD
                                        BANSKAR , AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                        NIL DEVENDRA SHANTI NAGAR COLONY
                                        THROUGH S.H.O P.S CIVIL LINE CHHATARPUR
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                                        (BY SHRI AMIT BHURRAK, PANEL LAWYER)
                                                      (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                                      T h is appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                following:
                                                                    ORDER

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 08/01/2021 passed by Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Chhatarpur (MP), whereby the application of the appellants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected in connection with Crime No. 578/ 2021 registered at Police Station Arakshi Kendra Civil Lines,

Signature Not Verified District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of SAN

IPC and 3(1) (D) 3(1) (DH) & 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.14 14:22:35 IST

I t is submitted that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been

implicated in the crime. It is submitted that appellant No.1 is Government employee working in Govt. Higher Secondary School Bamhnora Kala Block Bad Malahra and the appellant No.2 is the law student. It is argued that a cross case has been registered against the complainant party in connection with Crime No.579/2021

offence has been registered under Section 294, 323, 452, 427, 506 and 34 of IPC. H e has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CRA No.3110/2021 decided on 07/06/2021. It is argued that the complainants are the aggressors and they came to the spot where the accused/applicants were working and has abused and inflicted injuries to them, wherein applicants were injured for which this case was registered.

The appellants are the first offender. The appellants are ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail. On these grounds, they pray for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.

P er contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the application stating that there are specific allegation against the present appellants but he fairly submits that the appellants are first offenders having no criminal history. He prays for dismissal of this anticipatory bail application. He has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. passed in SLP (Cr) No.5191/21 decided on 07/10/2021, wherein certain categories are made for consideration of bails 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.14 14:22:35 IST 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 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 Signature Not Verified SAN accused requires to be vitalized. This provision makes it clear that

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Date: 2022.02.14 14:22:35 IST

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 subject to verification of the fact that the appellants are the first offender. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the appellants should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the appellants cooperate and the punishment is of seven years for the aforesaid offence and without commenting upon the merits of the case and in the investigation then the occasion of their 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 same is necessary and the appellant fails to cooperate in the investigation.

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

(iii) The appellants will inform the SHO of conerened police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.

With the aforesaid directions, subject to verification that the appellants Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.14 14:22:35 IST are the first offender, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed

of.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Prar

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.14 14:22:35 IST