Compliance With S.41A CrPC Notice Ordinarily Bars Arrest: MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Police Constable Recruitment Scam

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of acting as a middleman between Police Constable Recruitment candidates and impersonators to facilitate the illegal selection, observing that compliance with the notice under Section 41A CrPC generally operates as a bar to arrest. 

For context, Section 41A of the CrPC mandates a police officer to issue a notice of appearance rather than make an immediate arrest. 

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed;

"Once a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. (now 35(3) BNSS) is issued and the accused complies by appearing and cooperating, the Investigating Officer (IO) generally cannot arrest them. Arrest is only permitted if the person fails to comply or if the Investigating Officer records reasons that new evidence necessitates arrest". 

An application was filed seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a crime registered with the Cyber and High Tech Crimes in Bhopal for criminal conspiracy (Section 61), criminal breach of trust (Section 316), cheating by personation (Section 319), falsification of accounts (Section 339), cheating (Section 318), forgery (Section 336) of the BNS and Sections 43,66,66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act. 

Per the prosecution, the co-accused persons acted as impersonators and appeared in the written examination on behalf of the original candidates in consideration of monetary gain. The candidates, however, appeared in the physical efficiency test and were thereafter selected for the post of Contable (GD) at different places in the State. 

However, during the document verification, the authorities noticed suspicious Adhaar updates made immediately and after the examination, led to the registration of FIR and arrest of certain candidates. 

During further inquiry, it was discovered that some Aadhaar operators violated prescribed rules and procedures and thus, a separate FIR was filed against the said operators and co-accused persons. 

During the investigation, it was revealed that the applicant acted as a middleman and was thus apprehended in connection with the aforementioned crime. Aggrieved, he filed this application before the High Court. 

The counsel for the applicant contended that two FIRs have been filed on the same facts and allegations. 

The counsel for the State argued that the offence punishable under Sections 35, 36 and 42 of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act was not registered against the applicant on the previous occasion. 

The bench noted that the applicant was not a candidate who secured an appointment for himself but was alleged to have acted as a middleman between candidates and the impersonators. The applicant was accused of manipulating Aadhaar biometrics and facilitating the illegal selection of candidates in the Police Constable Recruitment, 2023. 

"In same offence two parallel investigation can not be conducted hence the matter which is subject to investigation at concerning police station is not a part of the investigation only the remaining part of offence is to be investigated which is not punishable maximum up to three years and investigator issued notice to participate in investigation. It is clear that the intention of IO is that he does not want to arrest the accused according to available evidence on record", the bench further observed. 

The bench noted that the IO does not want to arrest the accused and that he was also granted bail by the High Court in the previous FIR. Therefore, the court allowed the bail application subject to certain conditions. 

Case Title: Ashok Gurjar v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-9910-2026

For Petitioner: Advocate Amit Jain

For State: Government Advocate Ritwik Parashar

Click here to read/download the Order