Point of law : a person gets apprehension of being arrested in two situations:- firstly when a 'Notice' is issued to him under Section 41A (1) of the Code and secondly, after complying the terms of 'Notice' the police officer forms an opinion that such person ought to be arrested or in a situation, such person fails to comply the terms of 'Notice' or is unwilling to 'identify' himself.

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) seeking bail in Banahatti ROR Crime No.33/2020-21 of Range Forest Officer, Banahatti Range, Bagalkote Division, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 84, 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Rule 144 and 145 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, for brevity) and Section 379 of IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that Forest Officials registered a case in ROR No.33/2020-21 on 19.11.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 84, 86 and 87 of the Act, 1963, Rule 144 and 145 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and Section 379 of IPC against the unknown accused persons. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has issued notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for investigation. The said notice is dated 13.01.2021. The petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Officer in response to the notice as he has apprehension that if he appears before the I.O, there is likelihood of he being arrested. The petitioner apprehending his arrest has filed Crl.Misc.No.5063/2021 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot to sit at Jamkhandi, by order dated 29.04.2021.

Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner apprehending his arrest, when he visit the Investigating Officer in compliance of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. The counsel for petitioner by referring to clauses of Section 41(A) contends that the police officer, if he is of the opinion that he ought to arrest, he has to record the reasons. He further pointing out Section 41-A (4), as the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms of notice, the Investigating Officer may arrest him for the offences mentioned in the notice, if petitioner has not obtained any orders by the competent Court. He would contend that the decision in the case of Jerry Paul Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021(1) Kar. L.J., 550, is not applicable to the case on hand. In that case, the Investigating Officer had filed charge sheet and he had not obtained permission under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., for further investigation and therefore the person who received the notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., has no apprehension of arrest. He would contend that whenever a notice has been served under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the noticee apprehends his arrest and on that point he places reliance on a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Roy and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2015 (3) PLJR 618, it contains elaborate discussion over the Section 41, 41-A of Cr.P.C., and paragraph No.22 thereof, it is evident that issue has properly been answered. The paragraph No.22 is quoted as below;

"22. From perusal of the scheme of Section 41 Cr.P.C. as it stands now after being substituted by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2008 (5 of 2009), it transpires that the power of arrest available to a police officer in connection with commission of a cognizable offence may be categorized under three heads -(a) under the first head, the Police officer has been conferred a power to arrest any person who has committed a cognizable offence in his presence. This power is without any qualification, exception and prerequisites. The only sine qua non is commission of a cognizable offence in presence of a police officer; (b) the second category of the case have been mentioned under Section 41(1)(b). In this class, those cases are included which are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or