Bhurelal Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 11730 MP

                                  1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                  BEFORE
                     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                         ON THE 6th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37385 of 2022

         Between:-
         BHURELAL VERMA S/O SHRI BABULAL VERMA,
         AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT.
         TEACHER VILLAGE RENWAJA POLICE STATION
         ROUN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....APPLICANT
         (BY PRASHANT SHARMA WITH SHRI ANAND PUROHIT-
         ADVOCATES)

         AND

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

                                                            .....RESPONDENT
         (BY SHRI R.K. AWASTHY- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

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

This is firs t application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of

anticipatory bail.

T h e applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.178/2022 registered by Police Station Roun, District-Bhind (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 354 & 506 of IPC.

Allegations against the present applicant/accused are that he tried to outrage modesty of the prosecutrix who went to school for getting the mark- sheet of her brother.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent

and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that this is not a case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix and accused person knew each other before the incident. The incident occurred at about 11:30 a.m. in the morning, therefore, the possibility of the presence of staff members as well as students in the school, cannot be ruled out. There is seven days delay in lodging the FIR after the incident for which no plausible explanation has been given. The applicant is a Government Teacher, in case he will be arrested then it will adversely affect the services of the applicant. The applicant is permanent resident of Village Rewaja, District Bhind (M.P.). Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tempering with the

evidence. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the application and prays for its dismissal.

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 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, but without expressing any opinion on 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 anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) with two solvent surities in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.

T he applicant is directed to mark his presence before the concerned Police Station in first week of every month until charge-sheet is filed and is directed to cooperate in investigation. In case of failure to cooperate, the bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected automatically.

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 him;

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.

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2022.09.06 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 17:27:35 +05'30'