TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers by contacting the owners of the machinery or goods transported. If the drivers were paying, they were allowing them to transport the goods. It was also their practice to make the calls to the other higher officers who were members of the gang. Thereafter, all the persons were sharing such looted money. For committing offence the accused were using police vehicles. One police constable, the driver, and one ASI are the accused in this case. The accounts to which money was transferred were fake. One of the co-accused who was serving at the bank opened those bank accounts in the name of the servants to get the government scheme. However, another co-accused, who was the brother of the accused working in the bank, was operating those accounts for committing the offence as alleged then. The investigation was done thoroughly. The other coaccused were arrested. This applicant's name came forward as a member of the gang member extracting the money in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The prosecution case is that the police went to his home many times, but he was not present. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the offences for which the crime is registered are pun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons mentioned in Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He would submit that the ratio laid down in Satender Kumar (supra) or Arnesh Kumar (supra) does not apply to this case. No accused can claim that he must be served with notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code as a matter of right. The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar (supra) are followed. Based upon the allegations and material collected in the crime, the investigation officer is justifiable to say that the arrest of the applicant is essential. He argued that the applicant is the co-accused in the crime. Unless he has been interrogated in police custody, it would be difficult for the investigation officer to collect incriminating material against him. If anticipatory bail is granted, the prosecution may not be able to convict him for want of cogent and reliable evidence. The offence is committed intellectually. The applicant would not support the prosecution unless he is arrested. The mandate of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) does not apply to this case, as has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nesh Kumar (supra) on the scope of objection of Section 41 and 41-A, which reads thus : "7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, 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 Ccourt or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the Ccourt 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 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from disclosing said facts either to the Court or to the police officer. One more ground on which an arrest may be necessary is when his/her presence is required after arrest for production before the Court and the same cannot be assured. 12. In para 22, it has been further observed that this provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. Similarly, the police officer shall record reasons when he/she chooses not to arrest. There is no requirement of the aforesaid procedure when the offense alleged is more than seven years, among other reasons. In para 23, it has been observed that the consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offense. Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail, courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail. 13. Reading Section 41A read with Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the a....