Anand Sukhlal Pardeshi vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that a notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code is not mandatory in every case where arrest is not required under Section 41(1) of the CrPC, especially when the investigation officer is satisfied that the arrest is necessary. The Court clarified that the stage for recording reasons for arrest under Section 41(1) of the CrPC arises when an arrest is to be made. In this case, the applicant had not yet been arrested, and the Court considered his application for pre-arrest bail. The Court found that the applicant's name had emerged in the crime, and he had reportedly avoided police visits to his home, leading to an inference that he had avoided arrest. The charge sheet indicated he was absconding. The Court agreed with the State that there were reasons to believe the applicant's arrest was required for proper investigation and to prevent him from causing evidence to disappear or tampering with it. The Court concluded that the principles laid down in *Satender Kumar* and *Arnesh Kumar* were not applicable to the present case, considering the nature and commission of the offence. Therefore, the Court held that it was not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and dismissed the application.

Facts

The applicant, Anand s/o Sukhlal Pardeshi, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 02 of 2024, registered at Azadnagar Police Station, District Dhule, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 341, 170, 201, 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that a gang impersonated GST officers, stopped trucks on highways in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, demanded penalties for non-production of GST receipts, and extorted money from drivers and owners. The gang used police vehicles and fake bank accounts, with one co-accused allegedly working in a bank to open these accounts. The applicant's name emerged as a gang member involved in extracting money in Madhya Pradesh, and he was reportedly not present at his home during police visits. A charge sheet was filed against him under Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code, indicating he was absconding.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is mandatory in every case where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) of the CrPC, particularly when considering an application for anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the offences registered are punishable up to seven years, necessitating compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC and following the Supreme Court's ratio in *Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation* and *Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar*. He contended there was no material against him, and his arrest should not be based solely on recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or co-accused statements. He offered to cooperate with the investigation and sought interim protection. Respondent's Arguments: The State argued that sufficient material existed to justify the applicant's arrest due to his active involvement, evidenced by thousands of calls between accused. They asserted that the offences were serious, involving impersonation and extraction of huge amounts of money through fake accounts. The State contended that the principles in *Satender Kumar* and *Arnesh Kumar* did not apply, as no accused has a right to a Section 41A notice. They argued arrest was essential for proper investigation and to prevent tampering with evidence, and that granting anticipatory bail would hinder the collection of incriminating material.