Bhupendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16595 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhupendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 June, 2024

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                             1                           MCRC-23604-2024
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                  ON THE 10 th OF JUNE, 2024
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23604 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.     BHUPENDRA SINGH S/O BHAGWAN SINGH, AGED
                                 ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT
                                 EMPLOYEE R/O VILLAGE SUNWARA TEHSIL
                                 S H A H P U R A DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                          2.     SAJAL JAIN S/O DHANYA KUMAR JAIN, AGED
                                 ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT
                                 EMPLOYEE R/O VILLAGE SUNWARA TEHSIL
                                 SHAHPURA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI S.B. SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION CHARGAWAN DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI YOGENDRA DAS YADAV - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

This is the FIRST application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant in connection with Crime No.156/24 registered at Police Station:

Chargawan, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest on the basis of registration of

2 MCRC-23604-2024 offences referred above.

As per prosecution case, on 15.05.2024 complainant made a written complaint that on 25.03.2024 there was direction by the State Govt. regarding the purchase of wheat which was being stored at Raghav Warehouse; thereafter on 14.05.2024 an inspection was done by Upper Collector (rural) in which he found certain poor quality wheat stored in the warehouse. It is further alleged that out of the 13 stacks, two stacks were of poor quality, which made the authorities infer that the applicants had committed forgery with Government. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police registered offence under the aforesaid Section against present applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants at the outset has submitted that the crime which has been registered against the applicant mentions of the offence of which the maximum sentence therein is up to seven years and in the light of the Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273, wherein directions have been issued to the police authorities not to make unnecessary arrest in the offences where offences were punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend upto seven years whether with or without fine, the applicant is entitled for enlargement on bail in the event of his arrest. It was further argued that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Zarina Begum vs. State of M.P. through P.S. E.O.W. passed in M.Cr.C. No.30933/2020 dated 13.05.2021 had passed a detailed order, wherein apart from the judgment of Arnesh Kumar (supra) other judgments and the case law as developed as on date on this issue has been discussed and the Coordinate Bench was pleased enough to grant anticipatory bail to

3 MCRC-23604-2024 an accused of an offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 r/w Section 120B of IPC. It was further argued that where for an offence, the maximum imprisonment provided is 7 years or upto 7 years, the accused shall not be arrested by the police as an ordinary course of action, unless it is under a special statute mandating such an arrest or if the police finds it expedient to arrest such an accused, then before effecting any arrest in such case, it is required to record its reasons and then only the arrest could be made.

O n the strength of the above arguments as well as the judgments cited, it was prayed that the present applicants deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.

On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposed the bail application and prayed for its dismissal.

I n the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), it has been directed by the Ap e x Court that in offences involving punishment up to seven years' imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant does not cooperate in the investigation. The applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation, then the

occasion of his arrest should not arise.

For ready reference and convenience, the guidelines laid down by the 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

4 MCRC-23604-2024 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 need 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 the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to

5 MCRC-23604-2024 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 of Cr.P.C.

9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalized. This provision makes it clear that in a l l 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.

Likewise in the matter of Zarina Begum (supra) in para 33 and 34 the Coordinate Bench has held as under :

3 3 . As regards the grant of bail in offences involving punishment of more than seven years imprisonment, there can be no universal rule of thumb. It would defeat the very purpose of bail law, if bail were to be rejected only on account of the offence being heinous in nature. Weather an offence is heinous in nature is a matter of perception but, it would be reasonable to include in its ambit and scope such offences, which shock the conscience of a reasonable person. Again, bail cannot be denied merely because the allegations relate to the commission of a heinous offence. The nature of the evidence, the

6 MCRC-23604-2024 antecedents of the offender, the circumstances in which the offence was committed etc., are also to be considered. However, what the Courts must consciously exclude is the cacophony of hyper opinionated and unmoderated voices on social, print and electronic media. Public perception must never be a factor while deciding a bail application. At the same time, prudent reasons ought to be briefly given to reflect the mind of the Court while deciding the application for bail.

34. While considering an application for bail, the following may be kept in mind;

34A. Whether, granting bail to the under-trial would result in him attempting to overawe and influence the witness or influence the course of investigation, either by threat of dire consequences or by monetary inducement? 34B. Whether, the probability of the under-trial, upon his release, committing another crime while on bail, would be germane while considering grant of bail to recidivists or repeat offenders? 34C. Whether, there is a probability upon the release of the accused on bail that he would fall victim of any vengeful action by the Complainant?

34D. Whether, the release of the accused on bail would raise a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace, and social or civil unrest, on account of the nature of the offence alleged against him? 34E. Whether, the accused would destroy the evidence yet to be collected during investigation, upon his release on bail?

34F. Whether, the overwhelming nature of prima facie evidence against the accused is such that he may be tempted to abscond and evade the process of justice all together if he is enlarged on bail?

7 MCRC-23604-2024 Lo o king to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), this Court is inclined to direct thus:

i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when

the same is necessary and the applicant fails to cooperate in the investigation.

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

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

CC as per rules/directions.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) V. JUDGE rv