Anticipatory bail granted under conditions of cooperation with the investigation, following guidelines from precedent cases on arrest protocols.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 615 of 2023, under Section 3(1)/58/72(1) U.P. Sub Mineral (Removal) Rules, 2021 and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and Section 379, 411 IPC, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Agra, during the pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant's name surfaced in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused persons. Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against two co- accused persons and investigation against the applicant is still pending. Applicant has criminal history of one case, which has been explained in the present anticipatory bail application. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

4. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant, the prayer of applicant for anticipatory bail is refused.

5. However, considering the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, where guidelines have been given for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."

6. In the recent judgment in the case of Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State