The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a plea seeking pre-arrest bail opined that the apprehension of arrest still exists even after issuing notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “Cr. P.C, 1973”) and held that the courts ought not to deny an application for Anticipatory Bail under Section. 438 of Cr. P.C, 1973 in such circumstances.
Section 41-A of Cr. P.C, 1973 states that a Police Officer can call upon any person, against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him for recording reasons.
The Hon’ble Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar was hearing a petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner upon being rejected by Hon’ble Additional District and Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. The petitioner is accused under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Rule 144 and 145 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and punishable for the offences under sections 80, 84, 86, and 87 of the Cr. P.C, 1973.
The petitioner contended that for breaching the terms of notice under 41-A to appear before the investigating officer, he is likely to be arrested and hence filed an anticipatory bail application before the Hon’ble court.
The prosecution, on the other hand, said that the investigation officer has issued a notice under Section 41-A to the petitioner to appear before him only for inquiry and there is no apprehension of the arrest.
The Hon’ble Court after finding that there is a reasonable apprehension of the arrest of the petitioner granted anticipatory bail on personal bond and directed the petitioner to appear before the investigation officer within 15 days period.
