Deependra Singh @ Dipu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17890 MP

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                              ON THE 27 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46578 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DEEPENDRA SINGH @ DIPU S/O RAJENDRA BAHADUR
                           SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF
                           EMPLOYED R/O PS MAIKIN PS GOVIND GARH
                           DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI PREMENDRA SEN - ADVOCATE)

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

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI D.K. PAROUHA - GOVERNMENT 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. 637/2019, registered at Police Station Maihar District Satna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 407/34, 420, 467, 468, 471, 411, 120-B of the IPC.

2. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that offences alleged against applicant are punishable upto 7 years' imprisonment. In these circumstances, respondent may be directed to follow the directions issue in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 10/28/2023 2:11:23 PM

judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that applicant was given notice under section 41-A, therefore, there is no apprehension on part of applicant that he will be arrested by police.

4. Heard the 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 10/28/2023 2:11:23 PM

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 circumstance, bail application filed by applicant i s 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 co-operate in investigation of case and they will appear before Investigating Officer as and when required for investigation. If applicant do not cooperate in investigation of case, then the 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).

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 10/28/2023 2:11:23 PM

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

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE pn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 10/28/2023 2:11:23 PM