ORDER : The accused in Crime No.118/2016, registered with Naregal Police, for the of fence punishable under Section 21 of MMRD Act, 1957 read with section 379 of IPC, has come up in this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Admittedly in this proceedings the complainant is none other than the Sub-Inspector of Police by name Manjula B. Sadariyavar, who was the Police Sub-Inspector of Naregal Police Station at the relevant time. The complaint would indicate that on 12.8.2016 at about 1.20 p.m. when she was in the police station, she received credible information with reference to mining of minor mineral namely sand being stolen and illegally transported in Eicher tractor. 3. The letter dated 12.8.2016 which is addressed by the very same officer to the Station House Officer (SHO), Naregal Police Station, indicate that she went to the place of incident along with panchas and staff of police station namely CPC 1000, 502 and apprehended the tractor bearing registration No.KA-37/T-2876 which was coming from Gaddi Halla side loaded with illegally mined sand being transported in the said tractor. The complainant would state that she stopped the said vehicle, apprehended the driver who is none other than the petitioner herein, ascertained his name, father’s name, age, his caste, occupation, place of residence etc., and also enquired from which place he loaded the sand into the tractor and to which place he was taking the same and would also record in the letter that he was transporting the said sand to Naregal from Gaddi Halla and she also enquired with him whether he had required permit to mine and transport the sand, for which she has secured answer that he neither had permit nor pass for transporting of the sand from Gaddi Halla which is government revenue land and after getting confirmation that the said sand is illegally loaded into the said tractor and being illegally transporting to Naregal, she took him along with the loaded tractor and trailer to the police station and said to have handed over the said person to the SHO by name Hanumantappa Tippanna Halli, who is Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in rank. 4. 4. The letter which is written by her and produced by her as document No.2 would indicate that the SHO took possession of the tractor trailer and also the said person and recorded the same in Crime No.118/2016 for the of fence punishable under Section 21 of MMRD Act, 1957 and under Section 379 of IPC. 5. In the entire material available on record, there is no reference to the petitioner herein who was the driver of the of fending tractor at the relevant point of time being arrested either by the complainant Smt. Manjula Sadariyavar or the SHO Hanamantappa Tippanna Halli, thereby indicating that the driver of the offending tractor trailer is allowed to go scot-free. When they are certain that he has committed a cognizable and non-bailable of fence under the provisions of IPC, why they have allowed him to go scot-free without taking up the investigation and making him to approach the Sessions Court at first instance seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not forthcoming. The petition which was filed by him in Crl. Misc. No. 212/2016 came to be dismissed by order dated 5.10.2016. In the said proceedings the public prosecutor who represented the State by Naregal P.S. opposed the grant of bail which was the reason for dismissal of the said petition. Thereafter the driver of the said vehicle has come up in this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 6. When this Court was going through the material available on record noticed serious lapses on the part of the complainant Smt. Manjula Sadariyaver, PSI of Naregal P.S. and also SHO Sri Hanamantappa Tippanna Halli in registering the complaint and not taking into custody the driver of the vehicle by arresting him. There are serious lapses which are deliberately committed by the aforesaid officers. The procedural lapse as observed by this Court are as under. 7. In the instant case the petitioner herein was the person who was driving the tractor trailer which was filled with illegally mined sand from the Government Halla namely Gaddi Halla to be transported to Naregal. It is not as if the said act was not within the knowledge of the PSI of Naregal PS, as could be seen from her letter addressed to the SHO dated 12.8.2016 which would clearly indicate that she had credible information with reference to illegal mining and transporting sand in the said tractor. It is not as if the said act was not within the knowledge of the PSI of Naregal PS, as could be seen from her letter addressed to the SHO dated 12.8.2016 which would clearly indicate that she had credible information with reference to illegal mining and transporting sand in the said tractor. When she specifically state the model of the tractor as Eicher tractor, pursuant to the information she received, she would also state that she has secured permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Circle Inspector of Police of the jurisdiction who have authority over the said jurisdictional police station and thereafter proceed to the place where the of fence is committed along with panchas and police constables. She says that she apprehended the petitioner herein who was transporting the sand illegally but she does not arrest him even though the said of fence is cognizable and non bailable. 8. Under Section 41(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. she was expected to arrest the driver immediately and also seize the tractor and trailer, but she has not done that. Instead she would bring the tractor and trailer and driver to the police station by addressing a letter to the ASI who was SHO at the relevant time, put them under his custody, who in turn would register a complaint in Crime No.118/2016 for the of fence punishable under Section 21 of MMRD Act, 1957 and for the of fence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and thereafter would issue notice to him. The most strange and weird procedure which is observed is that the aforesaid SHO himself issue a notice to the driver under Section 41A(1) of Cr.P.C. and the notice is in form No. B intimating him to appear whenever he is called and allow him to go scot-free. 9. In the said process there is serious lapses committed by both the officers namely complainant Mrs. Manjula Sadariyavar in not arresting the person by following the procedure under Section 41(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and wrongfully surrendering the custody of the said person and as well as tractor and trailer to the SHO and in turn SHO not arresting the said person after registering the complaint for non cognizable of fence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and also under Section 21 of MMRD Act, 1957. He would also let him to go by issuing notice. He would also let him to go by issuing notice. It would clearly indicate that they have deliberately allowed the petitioner herein to go scot-free when he was available for arrest before them and which they should have completed by exercising the power vested in them. Instead they would allow him to go scot-free and permit him to burden the Sessions Court and this Court by filing a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail. This is the most mischievous act that could be committed by the PSI and as well as the SHO of Naregal P.S. for extraneous reasons as could be made out from the records. The said lapse appears to be intentional and deliberate. 10. Therefore in the circumstances, this Court has observed that this practice is prevailing in almost all the police stations, which has resulted in filing of petitions by the accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., before Sessions Court. In other words, this conduct of police are over burdening these Courts which are already saddled with enormous pendency of judicial work for lack of Judicial Officers. This situation is directly attributable to incompetence of Police Officers in investigating into the crime following the rule of law. Therefore there should be an end to this kind of deliberate lapses on the part of the police and there should be some sense of order in place. 11. When such observations were made, the learned HCGP tried to place before this Court a Circular dated 28.10.2012 bearing No.Crm/Misc/394/NR/2012 which is said to have issued by the Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Belagavi. The learned HCGP tried to support the procedure adopted by aforesaid officers relying on the said circular. According to him, the said circular deal with the procedure required to be followed while dealing with arrest of accused in some of the cases when the offence is cognizable. The learned HCGP would submit that the aforesaid circular is issued pursuant to a direction issued by the Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, which is marked for reporting and rendered in Crl. A. No. 1277/2014 (SLP (Crl.) No.9127/2013) and disposed of by judgment dated 2.7.2014. 12. The learned HCGP would submit that the aforesaid circular is issued pursuant to a direction issued by the Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, which is marked for reporting and rendered in Crl. A. No. 1277/2014 (SLP (Crl.) No.9127/2013) and disposed of by judgment dated 2.7.2014. 12. When the said judgment is seen, it indicates that in a proceedings under Section 498- A of IPC, to prevent unnecessary arrest with reference to persons cited in a complaint, the Hon’ble Apex Court has issued certain directions to the Police Department, indicating that instead of exercising their power under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., and arrest them, to issue notice to the accused under Section 41A(1) to ensure their appearance as and when required for investigation. In that behalf three forms are also prepared to be issued to the accused in the aforesaid circumstances. 13. In the instant case an attempt is made to take shelter under that order, which has absolutely no relevance to the case on hand, the notice under section 41A(1) of Cr.P.C., is issued to the petitioner herein in form No. B and he is al lowed to go scot-free which prima-facie appears to be deliberate. In that view of the matter there is not only lapse in their duty but also in trying to interpret the entire provision of law in a wrongful manner by issuing a notice in form No. B under Section 41A(1) Cr.P.C., which is not applicable to the facts on hand. An attempt is made to allow the petitioner herein to go scot-free and thereafter to disturb the Court of Sessions Judge, Gadag, at the first instance and this Court, for the relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which is not entitled to. 14. In that view of the matter, this court would direct the Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Belagavi, to keep these two officers under suspension and to conduct an enquiry against them for their dereliction of duty and also for being supportive for such activities in similar matters. The enquiry against these two officers shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and outcome of that enquiry should be placed before this Court, wherever it is sitting at the relevant time. The enquiry against these two officers shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and outcome of that enquiry should be placed before this Court, wherever it is sitting at the relevant time. This Court would also place its appreciation on record the assistance rendered by the senior member of Belagavi Bar Association Sri A.G. Mulawadmath. With such observation this petition is dismissed.