No Apprehension Of Arrest, 41A CrPC Notice Issued: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail, Directs Cooperation In Investigation

Noting that the appellants who sought anticipatory bail had been given notice under Section 41-A CrPC, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that there was no necessity to grant the relief of anticipatory bail.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat noted that the accused have already received Section 41-A CrPC notice from the investigating officer and a direction to cooperate in the further investigation. In these circumstances, since the investigating officer does not intend to arrest the accused/appellants, there does not arise a requirement for filing an appeal for anticipatory bail, the court added.

“Appellants are directed to appear before the trial court at the time of filing of charge sheet and to co-operate in investigation of case and will appear before Investigating Officer as and when required for investigation. If appellants do not cooperate in investigation of case, then Investigating Officer is free to act in accordance with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and directions issued by Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted while disposing off the appeal after mandating cooperation from the accused in the investigation process.

The investigating officer was also asked to strictly follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

The accused preferred this first criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after their bail application was rejected by the trial court. The appellants were accused of committing offences unpunishable under Sections 353, 294, 506, 34 and 184 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3(1), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

The appellants, apart from arguing that they have been falsely implicated, also tried to point out that the FIR was lodged with a delay of seven days and the entire criminal proceedings were merely an afterthought. The respondent state submitted that there is no apprehension of arrest and Section 41-A CrPC notice has already been issued.

Advocate Manan Agrawal appeared for the appellants and Advocate D.K Paroha represented the respondent state.

Case Title: Brajesh Pandey & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 14156 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order