1. Learned counsel for the applicant orally prays for and is permitted to carry out necessary correction in the array of cause title of the bail application during course of the day.

2. This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Criminal case No. 594/2023 registered at Police Station Kailaras, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 18 (C) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3. As per prosecution story, on 17/02/2023 upon a surprise inspection of the medical shop of the applicant/accused oxytocin injection was found in it, which is prohibited under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the same is also in violation of gazette notification of Government of India.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is five years and, therefore, in the light of case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCR 128 as well as the guidelines issued by the Main Registry at Jabalpur, the police officers shall not arrest the applicant unnecessarily and the magistrate shall not authorize their detention casually and mechanically. It is further argued that since the cognizance has been taken by the magistrate concerned in the private complaint filed by the respondent, the applicant is ready to appear and face the trial. Further argument is that applicant is the reputed citizen of the society and in case, he is arrested then his entire image will be tarnished in the eyes of society. The applicant is permanent resident of District Morena and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that present applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application and prayed for its rejection.

6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

7. In view of facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that how the applicant has been arrayed as an accused, this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in the light of the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) looking to the fact that since the offence in question attracts punishment less than 7 years and therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), it is directed that in offences involving punishment up to seven years imprisonment the court may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant does not cooperate in the investigation. The applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

8. For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] [LQ/SC/2014/671] are enumerated below:-

"7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C., 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 court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court 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 and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest Is it really required What purpose it will serve What object it will achieve It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by subclauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C.

9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalized. This provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1)Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by he Magistrate as aforesaid."

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) with two local solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

10. The applicant is directed to cooperate in investigation. In case of failure to cooperate, the bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected automatically

11. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant/s will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant/s will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant/s will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant/s shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant/s indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.

5. The applicant/s will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant/s will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

12. Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

13. E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

14. Application stands allowed and disposed of.

15. Certified copy as per rules.