Shivani Gadhavi
Published On: February 13, 2022 at 15:03 IST
The Telangana High Court ruled that Police cannot Arrest an Accused person when a Notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued, they have to first obtain permission of a Magistrate for the Arrest.
The Telangana High Court Single Judge Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti was hearing the matter of an Anticipatory Bail Application filed in a Case wherein the current Applicant (Accused) was facing charges punishable under Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 406 (Punishment for Criminal breach of trust) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Case is pertaining to a matter wherein the current Bail Applicant was seeking an Anticipatory Bail in a Case where he is accused of cheating the original Petitioners of INR 45 lakhs.
In the present, the Counsel for the Applicant, Advocate Rajendra Khanna submitted that the Telangana High Court had earlier issued a Notice to the Applicant under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby, the Police can ask the Accused to appear before the them.
The Counsel for the Petitioner stated that in accordance with the Notice, the Police has called the Accused to be present on two occasions, wherein it has been indicated by the Police that they would arrest the Accused. Therefore, the Accused has filed an Application for Anticipatory Bail.
In light of the above-mentioned facts, the High Court stated that, “It is appropriate to mention that after issuance of Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., if the police feels that the Accused has to be arrested, without obtaining the permission from the Magistrate concerned, they cannot Arrest the Accused.”
However, the Court did not allow the Application for Anticipatory Bail of the Applicant (Accused) but disposed of the Criminal Petition while directing the Police, “to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s Case (supra).”
