Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil @ Sonu Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 7665 of 2022
(SUNIL @ SONU AGARWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 11-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri G.P.Chaurasia, learned P.P. for respondent/State.
Heard on the first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.
T h e applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.955/2021 registered at Police Station Ambah, District Morena (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 272 and 273 of IPC.
As per the prosecution case the allegation against the present applicant is of adulteration in food or drink intended for sale. The related chemical was seized by the police authorities from the possession of the present applicant and sent for chemical analysis, Bhopal. On the basis of the aforesaid, an offences under Sections 420, 272 and 273 of IPC were levelled against the present applicant.
It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is further submitted that he has a valid licence for sell and purchase of the aforesaid chemical which was seized by the Police authority, therefore, no case is made out against the present applicant. In such circumstances, he prays for anticipatory bail in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273). He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court while considering the anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application stating that he is having criminal history of five cases out of which four cases are similar in nature. It is further submitted that the chemical which was seized by 2 the authorities from the present applicant is harmful for human consumption. It is submitted that investigation is pending in the matter, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present anticipatory bail.
Both the Advocates are heard. Case diary perused. Offence punishable under Section 420 IPC attracts maximum punishment upto seven years.
However, in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), it has been directed by the Apex Court that in offences involving punishment upto seven years' imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant does not cooperate in the investigation. The applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation, then the occasion of his arrest should not arise. For ready reference and convenience, the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:-
7 . 1 . From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.
7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The 3 law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by s u b clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C.
9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A Cr.P.C. aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalized. This provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by he Magistrate as aforesaid.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), this Court is inclined to direct thus:
(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant fails to cooperate in the investigation.
(ii) That, the applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation, then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.
With the aforesaid directions, the present first anticipatory bail 4 application stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE (LJ*) LOKENDRA JAIN 2022.02.11 14:46:12 +05'30'