Shailndra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 60 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shailndra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7491




                                                            1                         MCRC-13526-2025
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                  ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13526 of 2025
                                               SHAILNDRA AND OTHERS
                                                        Versus
                                            THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         Appearance:
                                 Shri Anshu Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.

                                 Shri A. P. S. Tomar - PP for State.

                                                                ORDER

1. Heard on I.A. No. 7448/2025 which is an application for taking additional documents on record.

2. For the reasons assigned therein, I.A. No.7448/2025 is allowed and documents are taken on record.

3. This is first application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime

No.62/2025 registered at Police Station Nateron, District Vidisha (M.P) for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 121(1), 296, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

5. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Applicants have already deposited the whole amount before the concerned authority. The

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7491

2 MCRC-13526-2025 applicants are permanent residents of District Vidisha and there is no possibility of their absconsion. In these circumstances, prayer is made for release of applicant on anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor 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 applicants, therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest of applicants and police does not want to arrest him. In these circumstances, he may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Applicants 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 applicant, therefore, there is

no requirement for filing this application for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court in case of 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7491

3 MCRC-13526-2025 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."

7. Considering aforesaid circumstances, this application is disposed of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7491

4 MCRC-13526-2025 directing the Investigating Officer concerned to comply with directions issued by the Apex Court, mentioned above in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

9. Applicants 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 applicants 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).

10. With aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE

Vishal