The central legal point established in the judgment is that the necessity of custodial interrogation in an anticipatory bail application can be influenced by orders or recommendations for the release of relevant property or material involved in the case.

JUDGMENT

Subodh Abhyankar, J. - This is applicant's first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.146/2020 registered at Police Station Chand, Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 379/34 of IPC, Section 53-A of the M.P. Mines & Minerals Act, Section 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. At the outset, Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that the order passed by this Court on 14.09.2020 could not be complied with despite having availed two opportunities for the same wherein this Court had directed the respondent/State to take instructions as to under which provision of law the recommendation has been made by the Mining Officer for releasing the vehicle in question along with the material (sand).

3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that the vehicle itself has been recommended to be released along with the material itself to the owner of the vehicle, in such circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is also not required. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant and otherwise also he was only acting at the behest of the owner of the vehicle against whom the Mining Officer vide order dated 08.03.2020 has recommended that the vehicle may be released to him along with the material involved.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer.

5. On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the case diary as also the order passed by the Mining Officer dated 22.05.2020, this Court finds force with the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the applicant and also finds that the custodial interrogation of the applicant in the present case would not be necessary in the light of the Mining Officer's order dated 22.05.2020 wherein the vehicle along with the mineral has been directed to be released to the owner of the vehicle. In view of the same, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application for anticipatory bail is hereby allowed.

6. It is directed that applicant Anil Verma in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

7. The applicant shall further abide by the following conditions :

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

(iv) the applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

C.c. as per rules.