IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN : PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE: B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7269 of 2014 Between:
Akudari Veeraiah @ Veeresh, S/o. Mallaiah .. Petitioner (Accused in Cr.No.89/2014 of Jaipur P.S., Adilabad Dist) AND The State of Telangana, rep .by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, through Jaipur Police Station, Adilabad District.
Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr. P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Crime No. 89 of 2014 of Police Station, Jaipur, Adilabad District.
The Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following ORDER:
“ This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.89 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, Jaipur Police Station, Adilabad District, registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The petitioner is sole accused for the suspicious death of his wife within seven years after the marriage dated 15-05- 2010 with two sons in their wedlock of the death took place on 11-05-2014 from the report of the father of the deceased that the accused was illtreating and harassing including for additional dowry and she came back to her parents unable to bear, that again her parents convinced and sent her, even she was suffering with prolonged ill-health she was not providing treatment and was demanding money including for treatment and she could express her agony to her father including by phone and her father went there to see and when asked the accused in this regard, the accused beat him with a chappal and unable to bear with the insult, the father-in-law of the accused left the place and on the way to his house at Arepalli village, in the meantime he received an information that his daughter consumed pesticide poison and went there and shifted to hospital where she breathed the last. A perusal of the record shows the propensity of the crime because it is within the four corners of the house of the accused the deceased whether consumed poison or otherwise died and it is followed by a galata including the father-in- law, whom the accused beat with chappal. However, taking consideration of the fact that the accused is in judicial custody since 25-05-2014 for nearly 42 days, the bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-
..2..
[1] Petitioner/accused shall execute self-bond for Rs.25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thousand only] with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned. The bond to be obtained is not only to appear before the Court, but also before court of Sessions or by virtue of any transfer of proceedings for want of jurisdiction or otherwise before any other Court and even after trial before such Court to appear before revisional or appellate Court or other superior Court - vide decision-Pre-Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur vs State of Delhi 1982[2]APLJ 43(SC); so that at stage of committal or other proceedings obtaining of fresh bond from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and solvency earlier produced are ratifying and in existence and enforceable, without even insisting his further presence, serves the purpose. Such recourse quickens the proceedings at such committal or other stages without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of Section 437A CrPC.
[2] Petitioner/accused shall report before the Station House Officer, Jaipur P.S., Adilabad District on every Sunday in the evening between 6 to 7 p.m. till further orders for assurance of his availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses.
[3] Petitioner/accused shall not enter the area where the victim and witnesses reside, until further orders being passed by the learned trial Judge relaxing the same empowering him by virtue of this order.
[4] Petitioner/accused shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not his bail shall be cancelled forthwith, without any further order so that, the learned Judge can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439 [2] CrPC. delegated to the learned Judge by this order during pendency of proceedings before the learned Judge.
[5] Petitioner/accused shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of the learned trial Judge.
[6] Petitioner/accused shall furnish his full address with property and Bank Account particulars and submit their passport/s if any, after enlargement of bail on the next hearing date before the Magistrate Court concerned (for collecting by police as part of his duty to investigate-also the means of accused and to furnish the same in the final report of investigation to enable the trial court in the event of considering the need of awarding compensation under section 357 CrPC. So to award from such material and evidence, apart from securing presence and obtaining of bond with sureties under section 437A CrPC. etc.), failing which it is open to the learned Judge concerned by virtue of the power conferred by this order to cancel the bail.
[7] The bail now granted is since a regular one till end of trial (without prejudice to the right to cancel meanwhile in case of need and/or for non-compliance of conditions supra) any absence of petitioner/s as accused for hearing/enquiry or trial, issuance of non bailable warrant-NBW (unless cancelled before execution) and even its execution and production of accused as per the NBW; that does not tantamount to cancellation of bail including from the wording of Sec.439(2) CrPC. and as such in such event no fresh bail application can be entertained. As it tantamounts to only cancellation of bail bonds earlier executed, (leave about the power of the court to issue surety notices by forfeiting bonds and for imposing penalty on the bonds forfeited); the proper course is to direct the accused to work out the remedy to pay penalty on the previous forfeited bonds as per Section 441 to 446 CrPC. and to submit fresh solvency with self bond for enlarging him by release from custody on payment of penalty of the earlier bonds forfeited without need of enforcing against earlier sureties again.”
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ..3..
To
1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Chennur, Adilabad District.
2. The Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
3. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Asifabad, Adilabad District.
4. The SHO, Jaipur Police Station, Adilabad District.
5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyd(OUT)
6. One CC to Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)
7. One spare copy.
SAH HIGH COURT Dr.SSRBJ DATED: 07-07-2014 ORDER CRL.P.NO. 7269 OF 2014 BAIL GRANTED DRAFTED BY: SAH APPROVED BY: DRAFTED ON: 08-07-2014 HIGH COURT Dr.SSRBJ DATED: 07-07-2014 ORDER CRL.P.NO. 7269 OF 2014 BAIL GRANTED