The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (MANOJ JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

01-03-2021 Gwalior, Dated :

Mohd. Parvez, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Avneesh Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-

State.

This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.789/2020 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 452, 323, 34, 294 and 506 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant Manoj Jatav submits that the applicant has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated. No case under Section 452 of IPC is made out against the applicant as there is no evidence with regard to preparation prior to commission of alleged offence. In fact, applicant was not present on the spot, at the time of commission of offence. It is further submitted that there is no criminal antecedents against the present applicant. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prayed to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant or directions be issued in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and has submitted that in the present case, the applicant had caused fracture to the complainant. Hence, prayed to reject this anticipatory bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

However, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), it is directed that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the petitioner does not cooperate in the investigation. The petitioner should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the petitioner cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:-

"7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused ha