IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADE FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRL.P.No. 6970 of 2014 Between:
Bollu Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Bhadra Rao Petitioner/Accused No.15 AND The State of A.P., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, through SHO, CID of RCIU, Rajahmundry.
Respondent/Complainant COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: SRI. G. RONALD RAJU COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders directing the Respondent SHO, CID of RCIU, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in CR.No.8/2011 of SHO, CID of RCIU, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC.
The Court made the following Order:
“This Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., by petitioner - accused No.15 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.8/2011 on the file of the Station House Officer, CID of RCIU, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 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. Petitioner is A-15 working as Record Assistant in Z.P. High School of Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavri District. He is one among the 27 accused of the said crime registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC. The averments were that with fake signatures and fake salary certificates the accused duped the Bank authorities by joining hand in glove with A-1, employee of the said Bank, in emblazing the funds by impersonation of the persons in mortgaging the documents with the Bank i.e. SBI, Kakinada Branch. A perusal of the record, even from the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, earlier moved by him, on 12.06.2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, particularly from the Inspector, who investigated the case, addressed a letter to the Public Prosecutor concerned that A-15 is to be cited as a witness rather than accused, the petitioner – A-15 can be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
2
4. Taking into consideration all these facts anticipatory bail is grated to the petitioner – A-15 subject to the following conditions:
[1] Petitioner – A-15 shall within 15 days from today surrender before the learned Magistrate concerned for custody and release on execution of a self-bond for Rs.25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thousand only] each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate. 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/trial before said Court, but also thereafter 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 existence and enforceable, without even insisting their further presence, such recourse quickens the proceedings at other stages before that Court or other Court without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
[2] Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday till filing of charge sheet and thereafter once in a month on 1st Sunday between 6.00 p.m to 7.00 p.m until further orders of learned Magistrate for assurance of their availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses. The relaxation of this condition in future can be sought before learned trial Magistrate to whom by this order power is conferred.
[3] Petitioner shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not their bail shall be cancelled forthwith, without any further order so that, the learned trial Magistrate can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. delegated to the trial Magistrate by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Court.
[4] Petitioner shall furnish their full address either present or changed addresses if any from time to time and submit their passports, if any, after enlargement on bail on the next hearing date before the trial Magistrate concerned for securing presence and obtaining of bond with sureties in future 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.
[5] The bail now granted is since a anticipatory 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 Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. and as such in such an 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 Cr.P.C 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.
3
[6] In the event of the police making out a case for police custody for the purpose of interrogation on this application within 15 days of released on bail the petitioner shall be liable to be taken to police custody for facilitating the further investigation remained if any, with the permission of the Magistrate concerned who can grant such police custody, subject to necessary precautions and instructions as per the constitutional bench expression of Apex Court in guideline No.iv in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab (1980)2 SCC 565.”
//TRUE COPY// To SSISTANT REGISTRAR for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry.
2. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
3. The Station House Officer, CID of RCIU, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad (OUT)
5. One CC to Sri. G. Ronald Raju, Advocate (OPUC)
6. One Spare copy KK HIGH COURT DR.SSRBJ DT. 4-7-2014 BAIL ORDER CRL.P.NO.6970 OF 2014 DIRECTION Drafted by: KK Drafted on: 5-7-2014 HIGH COURT DR.SSRBJ DT. 4-7-2014 BAIL ORDER CRL.P.NO.6970 OF 2014 DIRECTION