Vishal Dangi vs. State of M.P. & Anr - In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
The present case was heard through the medium of video conferencing.
Shri Ashfaq Khan, learned council for appellant.
Shri R.S. Dhakad, learned panel lawyer for respondent state.
Shr Pratip Visoriya, learned council for the complainant.
Judge: Justice Sheel Nagu
The case was first appealed u/s 14-A (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 08/12/2020 was passed by Special Judges whereby applications preferred by the appellant under section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
Appellant apprehended the arrest in connection with the offences punishable u/Ss 323, 294, 506, &34 of IPC & u/S.3(1)(r),(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered as crime at police station Bhander,District Datia (M.P).
Allegations were made against the appellant for causing minor injury with a wooden stick against the complaint who was a member of SC/ST community.
After the learned counsel heard for the appellant and pursued the case diary prima-facie office was punishable. Accordingly, the court declined anticipatory bail to the appellant.
However the case referred to “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273]” it was directed that 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 co-operate in the investigation. The appellant should first be summoned to co-operate in the investigation. If the appellant co-operates in the investigation then the occasion of arrest should not arise.
The law mandates that the police officer should state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to making such arrest. The police officer before the arrest should put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose will it serve? Only after these questions are addressed and one or the other condition is enumerated the power of arrest needs to be satisfied.
In the view of considering the principles lay down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), the court inclined to direct:
(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the appellant fail to co-operate in the investigation.
(ii) That, the appellant should first be summoned to co-operate in the investigation. If the appellant co-operates in the investigation then the occasion of arrest should not arise.
With the above mentioned directions, the present appeal stood disposed of.