Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Pachouri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 19 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2208 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ARVIND PACHOURI S/O LATE SHRI RAVINDRANATH
PACHOURI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUAKHEDA,
TEHSIL- SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT, SR. ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI SATYAM RAI
- ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SHAHPURA, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The applicant has filed this FIRST bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 04.01.2023 by Police Station - Shahpura, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 270, 272, 420 of the IPC and Section 23 of the M.P. Agriculture Warehousing Act, 1947 Chapter 6.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is suffering confinement since 4.1.2023 and charge-sheet has already been filed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 1/19/2023 6:58:22 PM 2He referred the peculiar course of events undertaken in the case where applicant who was facing primarily the charges under Sections 270 and 272 of the IPC in which the punishment for offence under Section 270 of IPC is maximum two years or with fine or with both and punishment for offence under Section 272 of the IPC is maximum 6 months or with fine and is bailable offence still authorities did not consider the same and applicant had to suffer incarceration. Offence under Section 420 of IPC is also covered by the judgment of Arnesh kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. Initially police authorities gave notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to the applicant and he participated in investigation. At the time of filing charge-sheet he appeared before the trial Court and the trial Court (J.M.F.C. Patan) placed him in confinement. Even the Sessions Court ignored the said aspect that all offences are triable by Magistrate and maximum sentence which can be awarded is 7 years, therefore, judgment of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) is applicable.
Incidentally, this aspect ought to have been considered by the concerned learned Magistrate / Sessions Court when the application for bail was moved. He referred the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Arnesh kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, Amanpreet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director reported in 2021 SCC OnLIne SC 941 and Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 to bring home the fact that offences are such where benefit of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. ought to have been given.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposed the prayer on the ground that notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. was given but the applicant did not cooperate, therefore, he was arrested.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 1/19/2023 6:58:22 PM 3 diary.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and the fact that all offences are triable by Magistrate and / or maximum punishment which can be awarded is 7 years or below, as per the spirit of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case o f Arnesh Kumar (Supra), Amanpreet Singh (Supra) and Satendra Kumar Antil (Surpa), this Court intends to allow the application.
It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 1/19/2023 6:58:22 PM 4
7. The applicant shall not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant in any manner.
8. Before parting, this Court feels it apposite to remind the police/ concerned adjudicatory authorities to take note of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Arnesh kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, Amanpreet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director reported in 2021 SCC OnLIne SC 941 and Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 so that compliance of the orders passed by the Apex Court from time to time ensuring the personal liberty of an individual be ensured.
Concerned Superintendent of Police to look into it. Application stands allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the J.M.F.C. Patan / Sessions Court Patan for information and sensitization.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Vikram Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 1/19/2023 6:58:22 PM