Mehtab Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8791 MP

                                     1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                             ON THE 1st OF JULY, 2022

                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30770 of 2022

         Between:-
         MEHTAB SINGH BAGHEL S/O BALURAM
         BAGHEL   ,  AGED   ABOUT   39 YEARS,
         OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB 157 CHHIMAK
         DABRA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
         (SHRI RAVI BALLABH TRIPATHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
         PETITIONER)

         AND

         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
         POLICE STATION PS MURAR (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
         (SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA, LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
         RESPONDENT/STATE)

      This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                      ORDER

This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.297/2022 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 115, 120-B of IPC and Section 25,27 of Arms Act.

It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow this application for anticipatory

bail in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar:[(2014) 8 SCC 273].

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has directed that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the petitioner does not cooperate in the investigation. The

petitioner should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the petitioner cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

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 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 sub-clauses (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 vitalised. 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 the Magistrate as aforesaid."

In view of above, present anticipatory bail application is disposed of in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

(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.

With the aforesaid directions, the present first anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

 YOGENDRA
 OJHA
 2022.07.01
 18:28:25
 +05'30'                                       (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
                                                        JUDGE
ojha