ORDER

This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.1023/2023, registered at Police Station Rampur naikin District Sidhi (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.

2. Application is disposed off directing the Investigation Officer as well as trial Court to follow the directions issued in judgments passed by Apex Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.

3. 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 h a v e 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."

4. Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has held in paragraph 43 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., (2022) 1 SCC

676. 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 Section 170 of the Code. There is not even a need for filing a bail application, as the accused is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of charges and issuance of process for trial. If the court is of the view that there is no need for any remand, then the court can fall back upon Section 88 of the Code and complete the formalities required to secure the presence of the accused for the commencement of the trial. Of course, there may be a situation where a remand may be required, it is only in such cases that the accused will have to be