Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 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 22 nd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14156 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. BRAJESH PANDEY S/O SHRI KEDARNATH
PANEDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GRAMROJGAR SAHAYAK R/O GRAM CHAURI
POLICE STATION DEOLOND DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEEPESH PANDEY S/O SHRI KEDARNATH
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PENSIONER R/O GRAM CHAURI PS DEOLOND
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANAN AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION DEOLOND R/O DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PYARELAL PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI
CHANDRASHEKHAR PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , R/O HALKA PATWARI JANAKPUR
DEOLOND SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI D. K. PAROHA, GOVT. ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first criminal appeal filed by appellants under Section 14-A(2) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, against the order of rejection of their bail by the trial Court for grant of
anticipatory bail to the appellants who apprehend their arrest in connection of
FIR No.204/2023, registered at Police Station Deolond, District Shahdol (M.P)
for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 294, 506, 34 and 184 of Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3(1), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that applicants are
innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that they
had not abused the complainant nor had they disrupted the government work It
is submitted that complaint was lodged after a delay of seven days as an after
thought. In these circumstances, prayer is made for release of appellants on
anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the
application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that notice under
section 41-A of CrPC has been issued to appellants, therefore, there is no
apprehension of arrest of appellants and police does not want to arrest them. In
these circumstances they may not be released on anticipatory bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5 . Appellants were given notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C by the
Investigating Officer and to co-operate in investigation of the case. Since
Investigating Officer does not want to arrest the appellants, therefore, there is
no requirement for filing this appeal for anticipatory bail. Supreme Court in case
o f Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 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
case, 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, appeal application filed by
appellants 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. Appellants are 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 appellants
do 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, appeal is disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
mms
