Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13217 of 2022
Between:-
NARENDRA SINGH S/O LATE KALYAN SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST TIKURIYA MOHALLA, PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
FOREST RANGE OFFICER VISHRAM GANJ UTTAR
VAN MANDAL PANNA FOREST RANGE OFFICER
VISHRAM GANJ UTTAR VAN MANDAL PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR PANDEY, GOVERNMENT 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 POR No.305/2007 registered by
Police Station-Forest Range Officer Vishram Ganj Uttar Van Mandal, Panna,
District Panna (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 40 and 51 of
Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 02, 04 and 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927.
It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated
in the crime. He has not committed any offence in any manner. 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 has been made accused on the basis of memorandum of
the other co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The
Signature Not Verified
SAN applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.16 13:26:19 IST 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 he has four other old criminal cases registered against him.
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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.16 13:26:19 IST 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
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 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 his/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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.16 13:26:19 IST application 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
Sha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.16 13:26:19 IST
