Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Singh @ Mahant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
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 16 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20145 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SURAJ SINGH @ MAHANT S/O MUNSHILAL
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE BIJROUTHA P.S.
CHANDERA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH).
2. SHAILENDRA SINGH S/O SURAJ SINGH YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE BIJROUTHA P.S.
CHANDERA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH).
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
S T A T I O N CHANDERA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AKSHAY NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicants/accused
under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are under
apprehension of their arrest, in connection with Crime No. 67/2024, registered
at Police Station Chandera, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
2 . Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that notices
has been given to applicants under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Applicants are
apprehending their arrest. In these circumstances, applicants may be granted
anticipatory bail.
3 . Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State opposed the
application for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Since offence is punishable upto three years of imprisonment,
therefore, case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8
SCC 273 will be attracted. 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 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. There is no apprehension of arrest of applicants in this crime number
as police has given notice to applicants under section 41A of Cr.P.C . Apex
C o ur t in case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 has laid down as under :
"43. The scope and ambit of Section 170 has already been dealt
with by this Court in Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v.
State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423].
This is a power which is to be exercised by the court after the
completion of the investigation by the agency concerned.
Therefore, this is a procedural compliance from the point of view
of the court alone, and thus the investigating agency has got a
limited role to play. In a case where the prosecution does not
require custody of the accused, there is no need for an arrest
when a case is sent to the Magistrate under Section 170 of the
Code. There is not even a need for filing a bail application, as
the accused is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of
charges and issuance of process for trial. If the court is of the
view that there is no need for any remand, then the court can fall
back upon Section 88 of the Code and complete the formalities
required to secure the presence of the accused for the
commencement of the trial. Of course, there may be a situation
where a remand may be required, it is only in such cases that the
accused will have to be heard. Therefore, in such a situation, an
opportunity will have to be given to the accused persons, if the
court is of the prima facie view that the remand would be
required. We make it clear that we have not said anything on the
cases in which the accused persons are already in custody, for
which, the bail application has to be decided on its own merits.
Suffice it to state that for due compliance of Section 170 of the
Code, there is no need for filing of a bail application."
7 . Considering aforesaid circumstances, bail application filed by
applicants is disposed off directing Investigating Officer concerned to comply
with directions issued by the Apex Court, mentioned above, in case of Arnesh
Kumar (supra) and also in case of Satyendra Kumar Antil (supra). .
8. Applicants are directed to co-operate in investigation of case and they
will appear before Investigating Officer as and when required for investigation.
If applicants 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).
9. With aforesaid, bail application is disposed off.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
vkt
