Purnima @ Poonam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3835 MP

                                                                      1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                                    BEFORE
                                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                            ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2022

                                                  MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13685 of 2022

                                          Between:-
                                          PURNIMA @ POONAM W/O RAJU PRAJAPATI ,
                                          AGED   ABOUT     36   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                          HOUSEWIFE R/O BEHIND THE SANTOSHI MATA
                                          MANDIR KHANDWA, DISTRICT KHANDWA (M.P.)
                                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                          (BY SHRI SHASHANK UPADHYAY, ADVOCATE )

                                          AND

                                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                                          JAWAR DISTRICT KHANDWA (M.P.) (MADHYA
                                          PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                          (BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN, GOVT. ADVOCATE )

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

This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.

T h e applicant is arrested on 2.3.2022 in connection with Crime No.55/2022 registered by Police Station-Jawar, District-Khandwa (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC.

T he prosecution story in short is that, complainant Gayatri Kunwar has lodged the F.I.R. alleging that his brother had been married with a girl namely Priyanka with given to the amount to his father Rs.2,00,000/- and during marriage they have given ornaments. It is further alleged that the marriage had been set by one of the Kailash. It is alleged that when the return back after marriage, one man came with motorcycle and stop the vehicle and kept the Priyanka and ran away, therefore, the F.I.R. has lodged against the applicant and other co-accused.

It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. She has not committed any offence in any manner. The charge-sheet Signature Not Verified SAN

has not been filed in the matter. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI

conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering her bail Date: 2022.03.22 11:25:36 IST

application. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. He 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.

P er contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the application

stating that there is specific allegations against the present applicant. The applicant is also having one criminal past as per the case diary record. In view of the aforesaid, he prays for dismissal of this anticipatory bail 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN

making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.03.22 11:25:36 IST

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 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, without commenting upon the merits of the case and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application for grant of bail. The applicant is directed to Signature Not Verified SAN be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.03.22 11:25:36 IST thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

trial Court.

The applicant is directed to mark her presence before the concerned Police Station in first week of every month and is directed to cooperate with the investigation till the completion of the investigation. In case of failure to cooperate, the bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected automatically.

The applicant shall submit written undertaking that he will abide by all terms and conditions of the different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by the Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID -

19) pandemic and he will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant/s will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;

2. The applicant/s will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3 . The applicant/s will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant/s shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant/s indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.

5. The applicant/s will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant/s will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7 . The applicant/s will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned 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

Signature Not Verified station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN concerned SHO regarding the same.

SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.03.22 11:25:36 IST

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE irfan

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.03.22 11:25:36 IST