HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN :PRESENT:
Between:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRLP .NO:5804 of 2014 Bandi Maya Rani W/o B. Prem Kush . Petitioner/A-1 AND The State of AP., through Public Prosecutor of the High Court, Hyderabad . Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.161/2014 on the file of the Karimnagar II Town Police Station, Karimnagar District, in the interest of justice.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent, the Court made the following.
ORDER:
“This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/A.1 in Crime No.161 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, II town Police Station, Karimnagar district, registered against him for offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C.
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This petitioner is A.1 among 4 accused. Undisputedly, there was a civil litigation and the matter is pending in A.S.No. 546 of 2009 against the suit for partition decree in O.S.No.13 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The averment was there was an alleged bonafide family settlement relating to the property and the accused persons received Rs.3,50,000/- from the defacto-complainant in settlement of the dispute, however, they went round in going back by execution of the cancellation deed by the A.1. Leave about validity of cancellation deed, but so called family settlement is bona fide or not being a subject matter of civil lis outcome therefrom, though from the very document of the cancellation deed filed by the petitioner, there is no averment regarding 3 lakhs received or not, much less no basis for the denial, and from the prima facie accusation on perusal of the case record.
4. However, taking into consideration of propensity of the crime vis-à- vis personal liberty of the petitioner being a lady and as there is no question of jumping the bail much less evading trial, this Court feels it just to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner-A.1 subject to the following conditions:
[1] Petitioner-A.1 shall execute a self-bond for Rs.25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thousand only] with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, otherwise giving liberty to the petitioner to submit before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class having the jurisdiction for taking to custody and enlarge. The bond to be obtained is not only to appear before the Court pending investigation and after filing of final report in the form of charge sheet or the like for enquiry or pre committal enquiry before said Court, but also thereafter on committal before the 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 provisional 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 their 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-A.1 shall report before the Station House Officer, concerned on every Sunday till filing of the charge sheet and thereafter once in a month on 1st Sunday till completion of trial/enquiry between 10.00 and 11.00 AM for assurance of his availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses.
[3] Petitioner-A.1 shall not enter the area where the victim and witnesses reside, until further orders being passed by the learned Magistrate relaxing the same empowering him by virtue of this order.
[4] Petitioner-A.1 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 Magistrate can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439 [2] CrPC. delegated to the learned Magistrate by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Magistrate.
[5] Petitioner-A.1 shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge.
[6] Petitioner-A.1 shall furnish his full address with property and Bank Account particulars and submit their passport if any, after enlargement of bail on the next hearing date before the Magistrate Court concerned (for collecting by police as part of their 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 Magistrate 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 petitioners 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.”
//TRUE COPY// To ASSISTANT REGISTRAR For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar
2. The V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar
3. The Station House Officer, Karimnagar II Town Police Station, Karimnagar District
4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)
5. One CC to Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)
6. One Spare Copy HIGH COURT AB DRAFTED ON 17-6-2014 DR.SSRBJ DATE: 13-6-2014 ORDER CRL.P. NO. 5804 OF 2014 DIRECTION