Rahul Mishra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J

Case Diary is available.

This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.417/2023 registered at Police Station – Thatipur, District Gwalior (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Preeti Indoriya was studying in G.R. Medial College, Gwalior and was student of MBBS Final Year. In between 26.07.2022 to 06.01.2023 applicant called the complainant and on the pretext to clear her exam demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. He called on her whatsapp from Mobile No.79745-80519 to complainant's Mobile No.88390-49683. Thereafter, complainant cleared her exam papers and when she did not pay the aforesaid amount to the applicant, then he started blackmailing and threatened that he will get her registration cancelled.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant and applicant both are student of MBBS. The applicant called the complainant and sent the messages only to make a prank. He never threatened the complainant. He did not receive any amount from the complainant. He is a young boy aged about 27 years and has a progressive career. His custodial interrogation is not required. Under these circumstances, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the application and submits that from the details of call records as well as whatsapp chat, it is no where mentioned that the applicant was known to the complainant. Applicant has been consistently demanding money from the complainant and threatened her to cancel her registration if the amount is not paid to him. Offences alleged against the applicant are serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Having considered the rival submissions and nature of the allegations alleged against the applicant and also the fact that the requirement of the custodial interrogation cannot be denied at this stage, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. However, looking to the fact that the offence involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of imprisonment and Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that the offences for which punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term upto seven years, the accused may be kept in custody only if the condition enumerated under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. exists. In the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & another [(2014) 8 SCC 273], the Apex Court has held as under:-

"..........the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorize his further detention and release the accused......".

Therefore, in view of the observations laid down in the judgement referred above, I deem it fit to direct as under :-

(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant fails to cooperate in the investigation.

(ii) That, the applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation, then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

(iii) That, if the applicant-accused person is arrested and he wants to file application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail before lower Court, then he will be produced before the lower Court without any delay.

Lower Court is also directed to consider his bail application as expeditiously as possible, preferably, on the same day.

This application is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.

Certified copy, as per Rules.