Omprakash Chourasiya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.71/2021 registered at Police Station-Mahrajpur, District-Chhatarpur, (MP), for the

offence punishable under Section 379, 411 of IPC and Section 4/21 of Mine Mining Act & Section 18 of M.P. Illegal Transport and Storage Act.

The matter in brief is that on 13.10.2020, Tehsildar, Maharajpur seized a Tractor Trolly bearing Registration No. M.P. 16 AC 9685 loaded with sand

whose proceedings was done on 24.03.2021 by Collector, Chhatarpur on the basis of which applicant is made an accused in the present case.

Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and investigating agency has arrested the

applicant without conducting proper investigation. As per prosecution, seized trolley was found in unclaimed condition and police did not saw anyone

filling the sand in that trolley. There is no direct evidence available on the record against this applicant-accused. Applicant is 52 years old aged person

and is single bread of his family. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for

the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the applicant.

After hearing both the parties, on perusal of record and considering the act of present applicant in the alleged crime, as well as looking to the specific

allegation made against him, I am not inclined to allow this bail application.

Since, the offences involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of imprisonment and Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that the

offences for which punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term upto seven years, the accused may be kept in custody only if the condition

enumerated in Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. exist. In Arnesh Kumar's case [(2014) 8 SCC 273] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

..........the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise

his further detention and release the accused......"".

In view of the observations laid down in the judgment referred above, I deem fit to direct as under :

(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when t h e 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.

(iii) That, if the applicant-accused is arrested and he wants to file an application for regular before lower Court, then he will be produced before the

lower Court without any delay. Lower Court is also directed to consider his bail application as expeditiously as possible, preferably, on the same day.

Accordingly, in view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.

C.C. as per rules.