Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajju@Ajay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4950
1 MCRC-7936-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7936 of 2025
AJJU@AJAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amit Kumar Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of
anticipatory bail.
2. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.171/2024 registered at Police Station Dursada, District Datia (M.P) for
the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 296, 333, 351(3), 3(5)
of BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case because the cousin
brother of applicant and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) made a complaint against the
then SHO. The applicant is permanent resident of District Datia and there is
no possibility of his absconsion. In these circumstances, prayer is made for
release of applicant on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4950
2 MCRC-7936-2025
application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that notice under
Section 41-A of CrPC has been issued to applicant, therefore, there is no
apprehension of arrest of applicant and police does not want to arrest him. In
these circumstances, he may not be released on anticipatory bail.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Applicant was 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4950
3 MCRC-7936-2025
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
directing the Investigating Officer concerned to comply with directions
issued by the Apex Court, mentioned above in case of Arnesh Kumar
(supra).
8. Applicant is 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
applicant does 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).
9. With aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
