Uday Pratap Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20702 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Uday Pratap Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 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 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54122 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           UDAY PRATAP SINGH PARMAR S/O SHRI RAJENDRA
                           PRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE PATNAKALA TAHSIL
                           PAWAI PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                           (NONE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                           S TAT I O N SALEHA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI C. S. PARMAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE )

                                 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.328/2023, registered at Police Station-Saleha District-Panna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 of M.P. Excise Act.

2 . Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submitted that applicant was released on bail under section 41A CrPC, therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest of applicant by police. In these circumstances application be dismissed.

4. Heard.

5. There is no apprehension of arrest of applicant in this crime number as police has given notice to applicant under section 41A of CrPC.

6. 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."

7. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, anticipatory 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).

8 . Applicant is directed 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).

9. With aforesaid, bail application is disposed off. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms