Pappu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13 MP

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2023
                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12070 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    PAPPU YADAV S/O SHRI PRAN SINGH, AGED
                               ABOUT 45 YEARS, GRAM AKODA THASIL BAMORI
                               DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    MUKESH S/O SHRI LAKHAN SINGH SHIKARI,
                               AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, GRAM AKODA TEHSEEL
                               BAMORI DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANTS
                         (BY SHRI SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
                               POLICE STATION P.S. AJK DIST. GUNA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    THE STATE OF M.P THROUGH POLICE STATION
                               BAMORI DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    COM PLAIN AN T THROUGH POLICE STATION
                               BAMORI DISTT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                         ( BY SHRI B.M.SHRIVASTAVA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

                               Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

The appellants have filed this first criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the impugned order dated 25-11-2022 passed by Special Judge (SC Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/4/2023 5:18:29 PM

& ST Act), Guna in Bail Application No. 813 of 2022 by which the application filed by the appellants under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.203/2022 registered at Police Station Bamori District Guna (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and sections 3(1)

(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act.

It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. Earlier notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. has been served on

the applicant and he is co-operating in the investigation. Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow this application for anticipatory bail in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar:[(2014) 8 SCC 273].

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has directed that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the appellants does not cooperate in the investigation. The appellants should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the appellants cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/4/2023 5:18:29 PM

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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/4/2023 5:18:29 PM

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 sub-clauses (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 vitalised. 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 the Magistrate as aforesaid."

In view of above, present anticipatory bail application is disposed of in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the appellants fails to cooperate in the investigation.

(ii) That the appellants should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the appellants cooperates in the investigation, then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

With the aforesaid directions, the present first anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/4/2023 5:18:29 PM

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Vijay

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 1/4/2023 5:18:29 PM