Bunty Chauhan vs State Of M.P. & Anr

Sheel Nagu, J

The present First Criminal Appeal u/S.14(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by Special Judge

(Atrocities), Morena, (M.P.) whereby application preferred by the appellant herein u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

Appellant apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss.294, 323, 506, 34 IPC & Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2)(5a) of Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered as Crime No.279/2021 by Police Station Bamore, District Morena (M.P.).

Learned counsel for State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material

available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in respect of aforesaid offences where allegation is that on the issue of returning the borrowed money, altercation took

place between the petitioner and complainant who happens to be member of SC/ST community. Abusive words uttered by petitioner and name of

caste was also taken in a derisive manner.

Since prima-facie offence as per case diary as read over by State Counsel, the offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 is made out, and therefore, Bar contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) comes in way of appellant, and thus, no case

for anticipatory bail is made out.

Accordingly, this Court declines anticipatory bail to the appellant.

However, looking to the fact that since the offence in question attracts punishment less than 7 years and therefore, in view of the principles laid down

by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, 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 appellant 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 has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more

purposes envisaged by subclauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C.

Another provision, i.e. 41-A Cr.P.C.aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalised. This

provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. , the police officer is required to

issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer

and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police

officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C has to

be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.

In view of above and considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) this Court without interfering in the

impugned order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Court below is inclined to direct thus:-

(i) that, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the appellant fails to co-operate in the investigation.

(ii) that, the appellant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If that appellant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of

his arrest should not arise.

Subject to above modification in the order of the trial court dated 20.07.2021 this bail application stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary compliance.