Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No.3350/2019
(Sonu Rawat Vs The State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 06.05.2019
Shri N.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramendra Singh Gurjar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
None for respondent No.2/complainant.
Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Atrocities Act') after rejection of earlier one which was rejected by order dated 06.02.2019 passed in Cr.A.No.1086/2019 against the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by Special Judge, (Atorcities), Gwalior by which the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as bail application No.733/2018, has been rejected.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.733/2019 registered at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior for the offences under Sections 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)
(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated because of previous enmity. The appellant was not present on the spot when the alleged incident had occurred. All the offence registered against the appellant under the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.3350/2019 (Sonu Rawat Vs The State of M.P.) IPC are bailable. There is no criminal history of the appellant. The appellant is a young boy aged about 19 years and if he is sent to jail, then his future career would be spoiled. Further, the appellant is ready and willing to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. And others (2008 (5) M.P.H.T. 247 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held as under:-
"In the instance case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No.3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No.3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."
Leaned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.3350/2019 (Sonu Rawat Vs The State of M.P.) of allegation and material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. However, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, it is directed 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 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.3350/2019 (Sonu Rawat Vs The State of M.P.) 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."
In view of above and considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) this Court is inclined to direct thus:-
(1) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.3350/2019 (Sonu Rawat Vs The State of M.P.) arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant fails to cooperate in the investigation.
(2) 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 anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge AK/-
ANAND KUMAR 2019.05.07 16:13:16 +05'30'