Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 September, 2022
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 3rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39876 of 2022
Between:-
NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE NAVAL
KISHORE SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WEAR HOUSE
MANAGER PANDO KA MOHALLA WARD
NO. 27 RAJGARH KE NICHE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
......APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SUSHIL GOSWAMI-
ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
INCHARGE POLICE STATION PS
MIHONA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI B.P.S. CHOUHAN- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
02
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this first application u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/S.34(2) of Excise Act registered as Crime No.96/2022, by Police Station Mihona, District Bhind (M.P.).
As per prosecution story, co accused - Ravindra was carrying 2610 bulk liters of country made liquor in vehicle bearing registration No. UP-75-BT-0632 without having any valid license. The concerned Police intercepted the vehicle and seized the liquor. It is further submitted that on the basis of memorandum given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the co-accused, the present applicant has been made an accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that the applicant was appointed as a manager at warehouse Lahar by Gwalior Alcoviru Pvt. Ltd. It is further argued that he has nothing to do with the vehicle seized by the police as he never sent that 03 vehicle. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is permanent resident of District Datia (M.P.). Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tempering with the evidence. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
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 04 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 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 sub-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 vitalised. 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 the Magistrate as aforesaid."
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the 05 case and the fact that the punishment is of seven years for the aforesaid offence, without commenting upon the merits of the case and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a local surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.
The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the concerning Police Station in first week of every month until charge-sheet is filed and is directed to cooperate in investigation. In case of failure to cooperate, the bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected automatically.
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;06
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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant/s indulge in any other criminal casethe benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.
5. The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7 . The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. Of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
Application stands allowed and disposed of. CC as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2022.09.03 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 17:52:28 +05'30'