ORDER

This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicants/accused under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are under apprehension of their arrest, in connection with Crime No. 67/2024, registered at Police Station Chandera, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that notices has been given to applicants under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Applicants are apprehending their arrest. In these circumstances, applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

3 . Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Since offence is punishable upto three years of imprisonment, therefore, case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 will be attracted. Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) has given following directions :

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

11.1. 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.PC;

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

11.3. 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;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising 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 authorise detention;

11.5. 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;

11.6. 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;

11.7. 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.

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

6. There is no apprehension of arrest of applicants in this crime number as police has given notice to applicants under section 41A of Cr.P.C . Apex Court in case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 has laid down as under :

"43. The scope and ambit of Section 170 has already been dealt with by this Court in Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423].

This is a power which is to be exercised by the court after the completion of the investigation by the agency concerned.

Therefore, this is a procedural compliance from the point of view of the court alone, and thus the investigating agency has got a limited role to play. In a case where the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for an arrest when a case is sent to the Magistrate under Sectio