Date of Order:
22 June 2021
Judge:
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar
Parties:
Ramappa (Petitioner)
The State Of Karnataka (Respondent)
Subject
In this case, the question before the court was on the maintainability of the plea seeking anticipatory bail. Petitioner applied for bail. The petitioner's counsel claims that if a police officer believes the petitioner should be arrested, he must record the reasons.
Overview
i. The petitioner was charged with violating Sections 80, 84, 86, and 87 of the Act, 1963, Rules 144 and 145 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
ii. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer issued a notice dated January 13 under Section 41-A of the CrPC, summoning the petitioner to appear before him for questioning.
iii. The petitioner had not appeared because he feared that if he does, he would be detained.
iv. Petitioner applied for bail, which was denied by I Add. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. As a result, the petitioner approached the High Court for anticipatory bail.
v. By using Section 41(A) provisions, the petitioner's counsel claims that if a police officer believes the petitioner should be arrested, he must record the reasons.
vi. He also highlighted Section 41-A (4), which states that if the petitioner has not gotten any orders from the competent Court and has failed to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Investigating Officer may arrest him for the offences listed in the notice.
vii. Prosecution submitted that:
- Because the petitioner's arrest was not necessary under 41(1), the Investigating Officer had issued a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. requesting the petitioner to appear before him for an investigation.
- As a result, there is no apprehension of being arrested. The Sessions Court appropriately dismissed the petitioner's anticipatory bail petition based on the judgment in Jerry Paul Vs. The state of Karnataka.
- Hence, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
Legal provision
Section 41A Cr. P.C-Notice of appearance before police officer
Section 438 of the CrPC- Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
Order analysis
- According to the Bench, The insertion of Section 41A Cr. P.C, which refers to the issuance of a "Notice of Appearance," is in line with people's rights to life and liberty. It aims to minimize the number of arrests, thereby decongesting India's congested jails.
- Furthermore, the court found that Section 41A of the CrPC prevents an arrest from taking place until sufficient evidence is acquired to produce or transfer the accused to the custody of the court.
- As a result, raising the matter of the maintainability of an application during the pendency of a notice issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C. or during compliance with the requirements of such notice, is utterly improper and unjustified.
- The Court granted the anticipatory Bail Application, subject to a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and one surety bond of the same amount, if the Investigating Officer was satisfied.
- It further ordered that the petitioner appears before the Investigating Officer voluntarily within fifteen days.
- The petitioner shall assist the investigation and make himself accessible for questioning whenever necessary.
Conclusion
Until a person is arrested, he has the right to apply for anticipatory bail. The fear of arrest exists even after the issuance of a notice of appearance under Section 41A of the CrPC. The Courts cannot deny an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
