IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE: B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRL.P. No. 4904 of 2014 Between:
1. G. Munichandra Reddy @ Munindra Reddy S/o G. Jayachandra Reddy
2. G. Jayachandra Reddy S/o G. Raja Reddy Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 & 4 (in Cr. No.145 of 2013 on the file of Alipiri P.S., Chittoor District. ) AND State of A.P., through P.S. Alipiri Police Station, Chittoor District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Respondent/Complainant COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : The Additional Public Prosecutor Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner/accused No. 3 & 4 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 145 of 2013 on the file of SHO, Alipiri Police Station, Chittoor District.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER “This Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioners/A3 and A4 in Crime No.145 of 2013, on the file of the Station House Officer, Alipiri Police Station, Chittoor district registered against them for the offences punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C.
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/A3 and A4, the Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Liberty is precious to an individual, so also the society’s interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important and the considerations as laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs.State of Maharashtra[1] AIR 2011 SC 312 for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail on gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused, the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, threatening of witnesses, the possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeating similar or the other offences and whether meant for humiliating of the petitioner all required to be evaluated.
4. In this case to say even from the order passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati dismissing the anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.1881 of 2013 dated 06.01.2014 so far as the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 at para-7 of the say from learned Public Prosecutor in opposing the anticipatory bail of A.3 threatened one Meneppa and A.4 also shared common intention, but there is no any material even to support it and thus it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail by taking into consideration of the propensity of the crime and the role of the accused and balancing the personal liberty of the accused vis-à-vis the larger interest of the Society, subject to the following conditions:
(Contd. 2. ) . 2 .
[1] Petitioners/A3 and A.4 shall execute a self-bond for Rs.25,000/-each [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 petitioners 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 revisional or appellate Court or other superior Court - vide decision - Pre-Legal Aid Committee,
[2]
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] Petitioners/A3 and A4 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 their availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses.
[3] Petitioners shall not enter the village where the victim and witnesses reside, until further orders being passed by the learned Magistrate relaxing the same empowering by virtue of this order.
[4] Petitioners 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] Petitioners shall not leave the State of AP pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge.
[6] Petitioners shall furnish their full address with property and Bank Account particulars and submit his 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.
(Contd. 3. ) . 3 .
[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 them 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 To
1. The X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
2. The IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor Distrct.
3. The Station House Officer, Alipiri Police Station, Chittoor District.
4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT)
5. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate (OPUC)
6. One Spare copy BV HIGH COURT DR. SSRB.J DATED: 28-04-2014 ANTICIPATORY BAIL CRL.P.NO.4904 OF 2014 BAIL DRAFTED: BY BV DATED : 29-04-2014 HIGH COURT DR. SSRB.J DATED: 28-04-2014 ANTICIPATORY BAIL CRL.P.NO.4904 OF 2014 BAIL [1] AIR 2011 SC 312 [2]
1982[2]APLJ 43(SC)