Aakash vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

I..A. No.14897/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.52/2020 registered at Police Station Nagra, District Morena (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 452, 336, 294, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he has not committed any offence in any manner. There is no direct involvement of the present applicant in the case. The applicant is reputed citizen of the locality and if he is sent to jail then his social reputation would get diminish. It is further submitted that this Court has already disposed of bail application of co-accused Ramesh Singh in M.Cr.C. No.29180/2020 vide order dated 21/08/2020 in the light of judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Hence, seeks parity and prays for grant of bail to the present applicant or directions be issued in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

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, 336, 294, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149 and 427 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 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.

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, present bail application is disposed of in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra).

Prosecution is hereby directed to comply with the direction issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) in its letter & spirit.

Let E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.