Bengaluru: Arrest of arrests is even after publishing notifications for appearances under the 41-A part of the criminal procedure code and in such circumstances, the court cannot avoid entertaining the request to seek anticipatory guarantee, the High Court has observed.
It was given a guarantee for suspects in the case of forest violations.
Allowing the request of Ramappa alias Ramesh, a resident of Jamkhandar Taluk in Bagalkot Regency, justice Shivashankar Amarannavar shows that in this case, the investigation was still in the process and violations accusing under 66 years Karnataka, 1963, could be punished by prison for 10 years.
“Therefore, there is concern that investigative officers can gather evidence and record reasons against the Applicant and can arrest it.
More than that, the applicant has not compiled the notification issued based on the CRPC 41A section.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the provision of anticipatory guarantees with conditions,” Judges further observed in his demands.
The judge directed Ramappa to execute a personal bond for RS1lakh with guarantees and voluntarily appeared in the presence of investigative officers within 15 days and also cooperated with the investigation.
On January 13, 2021, the applicant was issued with a notice below the 41-A CRPC part of the Range Forest Officer, Banahti, for an investigation of violations below 444.84, 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and part 379 IPC, following the seizure of motorbikes and Two sandalwood billets.
Capturing that he might be arrested if he appeared before the investigator officer, Ramappa moved the additional district and judge session, Bagalkot, looking for anticipatory guarantee.
However, the same thing was rejected on April 29, 2021.Tinggal, he moved the High Court.
The main argument is that if he appears before the investigation officer in response to part 41 – notice and officers formed the opinion that he had to catch the person to appear before him, he could do it by recording reasons.
Someone can also be arrested if he fails to obey the notice.
However, prosecution claimed that there were no concerns about arrests and petitions seeking anticipatory guarantees itself could not be maintained.