Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat @ Pappu Sharma vs The State Of M.P. on 10 July, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-15640-2020
(BHARAT @ PAPPU SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)
Gwalior, Date:-10/07/2020
Shri Arshad Ali, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Matter is heard through video conferencing.
I..A. No.4069/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
The applicants have filed this first bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.103/2020 registered at Police Station Daboh, District Bhind (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that they have not committed any offence in any manner. One FIR was lodged against the complainant of this case by the applicants and in counter- blast after lapse of 5-6 days, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicants. Except Section 452 of IPC all the offences are bailable. There is no direct involvement of the present applicants in the case. It is further submitted that applicants are reputed citizen of the locality and if they are sent to jail then their social reputation would get 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-15640-2020 (BHARAT @ PAPPU SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) diminished. Hence, prayed to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants or directions be issued in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the case has been registered against the applicant under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC. Hence, prayed to reject the anticipatory bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has 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 petitioner does not cooperate in the investigation. The petitioner should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the petitioner 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 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-15640-2020 (BHARAT @ PAPPU SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) 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 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 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-15640-2020 (BHARAT @ PAPPU SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) 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:-
(i) that, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicants fail to cooperate in the investigation.
(ii) that, the applicants should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If that applicants cooperate in the investigation then the occasion of their arrest should not arise.
With the aforesaid directions, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
vpn Judge
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2020.07.10
17:30:53 +05'30'
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'