Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Khanchandani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2015
MCRC-18690-2015
(DEEPAK KHANCHANDANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
04-11-2015
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan Gujar, learned counsel for applicant.
Smt. Jhanvi Pandit, learned Public Prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.
Heard.
Perused case diary.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No. 184/2015, registered against him at Police Station- Chandia, District- Umaria for commission of offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 379, 406, 407, 411 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957.
A dumper which was of the ownership of mother of the applicant was seized by the Police on the ground that the vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of coal. The allegation against the applicant is that he had issued instruction to the driver to contact another person and thereafter the coal was unloaded at Katni. The intention was of theft of coal. The dumper was engaged by Saravagi Transport Company.
Learned senior counsel has contended that the dumper was engaged by Saravagi Transport Company. There is no allegation that the applicant was involved in theft of coal. It is further submitted that the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence levelled against the applicant is seven years, hence in accordance with the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another (2014)8 Supreme Court Cases, 273, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. It is further contended by learned Public Prosecutor that interrogation of the applicant is necessary because the allegation against the applicant is of theft of coal. It is further contended that reasons have been mentioned in regard to arrest of the applicant in the case diary. The allegation against the applicant is that a dumper which was used for transportation of coal was of the ownership of the applicant. The applicant alleged that the dumper was engaged by Saravagi Transport Company which was of the ownership of mother of the applicant and the applicant was not owner of the dumper. The coal which was being transported in the dumper was unloaded at Katni illegally. The Supreme Court issued the following directions in regard to arrest of a person if the maximum sentence is seven years or less for the offence in which a person is said to be involved:-
"Hence the following directions are issued:
(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but also such cases where offernce punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine, is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC; (2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); (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;
(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;
(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;
(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."
Looking to the facts of the case and the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another (2014)8 Supreme Court Cases, 273, in my opinion, prima facie the applicant is eligible to get the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently the application is allowed. It is ordered that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number and the offences, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/ Arresting Authority. The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and to cooperate with the investigating agency. He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA