Brahmchari Prasad Tiwari Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RP, 364 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jun 26, 2015

RP-364-2015
(BRAHMCHARI PRASAD TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
26-06-2015
Shri Radhelal Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Advocate General with
Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General and Shri
Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate for the State.
This application has been filed for review /
modification of an order dated 6.5.2015 passed in W.P.
No.6197/2015 and other connected cases.
While disposing of the said writ petitions on the basis
of certain consent given, this Court had granted protection to
the petitioners for a period of seven days with regard to their
arrest. It was observed that during this period of seven days
they may seek bail from the court of Competent Criminal
Jurisprudence. It is stated that this period of seven days is to
expire tomorrow and, therefore, seeking extension of time,
this application has been filed.
Shri Radhelal Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioners invited our attention to a stay of arrest granted to
one of the accused, who is said to be the main accused, Shri
Srinivas Tiwari by the Supreme Court and submits that
petitioners had already filed an application under Section
438, which is pending in the High Court and, therefore, till
orders are not passed on the said application, they be not
arrested.
Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Advocate General opposes
the extension prayed for and submits that under the Criminal
Procedure Code there is no procedure for issuing notice before
arrest of person once an offence is made out. Inspite thereof, in
this case the petitioners have been granted seven days time to
procure bail from an appropriate court and as their
applications for bail filed has been rejected by the Sessions
Court, now when once the application is rejected by the
Sessions Court no further extension can be granted merely
because the matter is pending in the High Court.
We have considered the rival contentions and we find
that while disposing of the writ petitions we had granted
protection for seven days to the petitioners from arrest to
enable them to obtain bail, now from the petitioners’ own
showing the bail applications have been rejected by the
Sessions Court. Once the original court of criminal
jurisprudence has rejected bail applications, as contended by
the petitioners, we see no reason to extend the period of seven
days, merely because an application under Section 438 is
pending before the High Court.
Accordingly, taking note of aforesaid, we find no reason
to make any further indulgence, modification or extension of
time, the review petitions are rejected.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE                                      (VANDANA KASREKAR)
                                                      JUDGE