Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Saroj Kumre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49248 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SAROJ KUMRE W/O SHRI MAHERBAN SINGH
CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE R/O VILLAGE MOHAMMEDKHEDA P.S.
AKODIYA, DISTRICT SAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ASHISH SINHA - ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
S TA T I O N MAHILA THANA, DISTRICT SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI D.K. PAROHA - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE
AND SHRI SURENDRA PATEL - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR
No.73/2023, registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Sehore (M.P.)
for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 420 and 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
2 . Learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that no offence
under section 420 of IPC is made out against the applicant. It is submitted that
directions issued by Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273 will be applicable in the case. In these
circumstances, respondents may be directed to follow the directions issued by
Apex Court in the case Arnesh Kumar (supra)
3. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State do not object to the
said proposition and submitted that case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) will be
applicable if sentence is less than 7 years and respondents are duty bound to
comply with orders of Apex Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has given following
directions :-
"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure
that police officers do not arrest accused
unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise
detention casually and mechanically. In order to
ensure what we have observed above, we give
the following direction:
11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its
police officers not to automatically arrest when
a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is
registered but to satisfy themselves about the
necessity for arrest under the parameters laid
down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
11.2. All police officers be provided with a
check list containing specified sub- clauses
under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
11.3. The police officer shall forward the check
list duly filed and furnish the reasons and
materials which necessitated the arrest, while
forwarding/producing the accused before the
Magistrate for further detention;
11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention
of the accused shall peruse the report furnished
by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only
after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate
will authorise detention;
11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be
forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks
from the date of the institution of the case with a
copy to the Magistrate which may be extended
by the Superintendent of police of the district for
the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section
41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within
two weeks from the date of institution of the
c a s e , which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the District for the
reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7. Failure to comply with the directions
aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police
officers concerned liable for departmental
action, they shall also be liable to be punished
for contempt of court to be instituted before High
Court having territorial jurisdiction.
11.8. Authorising detention without recording
reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate
concerned shall be liable for departmental
action by the appropriate High Court."
6. Considering aforesaid circumstances, bail application filed by
applicant is disposed off directing Investigating Officer concerned to comply
with directions issued by the Apex Court, mentioned above, in case of Arnesh
Kumar (supra).
7. Applicant is directed to appear before the trial court at the time of filing
of charge sheet and to co-operate in investigation of case and will appear before
Investigating Officer as and when required for investigation. If applicant does
not cooperate in investigation of case, then Investigating Officer is free to act in
accordance with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and directions issued
by Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
8. With aforesaid direction, bail application is disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
sp/-
