DHIRAJ SINGH BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THESE anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') have been filed by the applicants, namely, Rakesh Gurjar, Sanjay Malviya and Dhiraj Singh Baghel, in connection with Crime No. 18/2013, registered with STF Police Station.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicants invited our attention to the provisions of Section 163 and then to Section 41, in particular, clause (ii) (b) of the Code, as inserted by Amendment Act No. 5 of 2009, and Section 46 of the Code to contend that the Police Officer can arrest a person only on fulfilling the requirements specified by the Amending Act. Further, the arrest cannot be for the purpose of extracting admission/confession or compelling the accused to give false evidence whilst in police custody by force or under coercion. That act of the police would result in the commission of offences under Sections 195 -A, 319 and 330 of IPC. Necessarily, therefore, when the applicants are more than willing to participate in the investigation, it is but appropriate that the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and other, : (2011) 1 SCC 694, paragraphs 85 and 90 thereof, in particular.