Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[7]Having placed reliance on the decision dated 11.11.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka in Sri Jerry Paul vs. State of Karnataka [Crl. Petition No.5963 of 2020] counsel contends that the investigating agency in the present case issued a notice of appearance under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to the petitioner since his arrest was not required in the case. According to learned counsel, Section 41A contemplates that the police officer shall, in all cases where arrest is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed cognizable offence to appear before the police. Learned counsel, therefore, argues that since notice has been issued under Section 41A, arrest and detention of the accused is not required and as such the accused can be enlarged on pre-arrest bail. [8]According to learned counsel, in the case of Jerry Paul (supra), Karnataka High Court also held that once notice has been issued under Section 41 A Cr.P.C., that itself makes it clear that arrest of the accused was not required. Counsel also relies on the decision of this High Court in Jhunu Das vs. State of Tripura reported in (2014) 2 TLR 566 and contends that ratio decided in the case of Jhunu Das is applicable to the present case which entitles the petitioner to release on pre arrest bail.

[10]Learned PP has also referred to the police statements of several other witnesses including the eye witnesses. Supporting the case of rash and negligent driving, one of the eye witnesses has stated that the accused stopped his vehicle after hitting the deceased on the road and seeing his alarming condition, he fled away with the vehicle. It has been further stated by the said witness that while fleeing away, the vehicle again hit the deceased who was lying ahead of the vehicle. [11]According to learned PP, the incriminating materials collected by the investigating agency have clearly made out a case of reckless and negligent driving against the petitioner and the said materials have also prima facie established that the petitioner knew that such reckless and negligent driving of him was likely to cause death. Learned PP, therefore, submits that a clear case under Section 304 Part-II IPC has been made out and the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of pre arrest bail in this case. [12]It is further contended by the PP that despite receiving notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the petitioner did not turn up before the investigating police officer. As a result of his non cooperation, it has been difficult to carry out a fair and smooth investigation of the case.

[14]It is finally argued by Mr. Datta, learned PP that without custodial interrogation of the petitioner it would be difficult for the investigating agency to carry out a full and fair investigation of the case. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court to reject the bail application of the accused.

[15]Considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the prosecution AB 57 OF 2021 papers including the case diary. It is true that initially the investigating agency issued notice of appearance to the accused under Section 41A Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2021 directing him to appear at the police station on 22.06.2021. But the accused did not comply with the said notice. Therefore, the contention of the counsel of the accused petitioner that once notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. has been issued to the accused, he cannot be arrested in view of the bar under Section 41A Cr.P.C. does not gain ground.

1."

[18]I have considered the nature of the offence, role of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation and all other parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited to supra. It would not be appropriate to have a detailed discussion of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating agency at this stage. Suffice it to say that the materials available on record prima facie support the prosecution case that the accused petitioner was absolutely negligent and reckless in driving his vehicle on a public road and as a result of his negligence and recklessness, the life of a person was lost. Prosecution has also made out a prima facie case that the accused was conscious of the fact that his recklessness was likely to cause fatal accident and death. It is also evident that the accused petitioner did not comply with the terms of notice issued by the investigating agency under Section 41A Cr.P.C. Accused cannot derive any benefit from the decision of this court in the case of Jhunu Das (supra) because facts of the two cases are entirely distinguishable.