Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tej Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-61299-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 61299 of 2021
(TEJ SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 10-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri V.S.Bule, counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Harshlata Soni, learned G.A. 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.727/2021, registered at Police Station- Ratlam,
District- Ratlam (M.P.) for offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
As per prosecution case, the applicant developed illegal colony without
obtaining license or authority from the competent authority and sold the piece
of land (plot) to the purchaser by suppressing the required information.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant was the
owner of the said land which was divered for the purpose of residential use
and he sold the land but not developed any colony. He did not suppress any
information before selling the aforesaid land to the purchaser. Applicant is a
senior citizen person aged about 76 years. The applicant has not committed
any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. It is
further argued that the applicant has no criminal past. The principle of
Arnesh Kumar's c as e 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 as well as counsel
for the objector oppose the said application submitting that allegations
levelled against the applicant are specific and therefore, they may not be
released on anticipatory bail.
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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.01.11 10:27:35 IST
2 MCRC-61299-2021
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 applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion
of their arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, if the applicants-accused person 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
Vibha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.01.11 10:27:35 IST
