Mayank Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 12287 MP

                                                             1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT GWALIOR
                                                             BEFORE
                                                HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                                                  ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44429 of 2022

                                    BETWEEN:-
                           1.       MAYANK SAXENA S/O SHRI RAJENDRA
                                    SAXENA, AGED    35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                    SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O N-15 ALKALOID
                                    COLONY, JAWAHAR NAGAR, NEEMACH (M.P.)

                           2.       HIMANI VERMA W/ O MAYANK SAXENA D/O
                                    SHRI JASHWANT KUMAR VERMA, AGED 38
                                    YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 712, SECTOR 9, URBAN
                                    STATE AMBALA CITY HARYANA, AT PRESENT
                                    R/O N-15, ALKALOID COLONY, JAWAHAR
                                    NAGR, NEEMACH (M.P.)

                                                                                        .....APPLICANTS
                                    (BY SHRI ANKUR MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)

                                    AND
                                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                    STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION
                                    KOTWALI, DISTRICT GUNA (M.P.)

                                                                                .....RESPONDENT/STATE
                                    (BY SHRI AVNEESH SINGH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

                                  This application coming on for Admission 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 applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.251 of 2022 registered by Police Station Kotwali, District-Guna (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 417, 420 and 34 of IPC

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 9/15/2022 5:35:35 PM

and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant-Shivani made a written complaint to Police Station, Kotwali, District Guna alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with co-accused-Rohit Saxena on 22.01.2022. After marriage, she came to know that her husband is impotent. When she discussed this fact with the present applicants, they denied the above fact and supported co-accused-Rohit. Thereafter, applicants-accused demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and one Innova Car as dowry and when the prosecutrix objected the same, present applicant No. 2 and other family members physically assaulted her. Applicants/accused cheated the prosecutrix by hiding the fact of

impotency of co-accused-Rohit. On the basis of which, aforesaid offence was registered against the present applicants and other co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is further argued that applicants are Software Engineers and at present they are working in Accenture, Pune, Maharastra. It is further argued that in FIR as well as statement of complainant no specific role has been attributed to the present applicants in respect of hiding the factum about impotency of co-accused-Rohit. They are brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani) of the prosecutrix and the allegations so made in the complaint are against other co-accused persons. The applicants are permanent residents of District Neemuch (M.P.). Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of their absconsion or tampering with the evidence. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court; therefore, they pray for grant of anticipatory bail.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 9/15/2022 5:35:35 PM

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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 9/15/2022 5:35:35 PM

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 applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent surities in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 9/15/2022 5:35:35 PM

Officer.

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/them;

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/them 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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 9/15/2022 5:35:35 PM

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE (LJ*)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 9/15/2022 5:35:35 PM