IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN :PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRL.P. No. 4796 of 2014 Between:-
Inti Peddiraju S/o. Nageswara Rao.
..... Petitioner/Accused No.3 in Crime No. 12 of 2014 On the file of Sakhinetipalli Police Station, East Godavri District.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through S.H.O., Sakhinetipalli P.S., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., 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 his arrest in connection with F.I.R.no. 12 of 2014 on the file of Sakhinetipalli P.S., East Godavari District.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent-State, the Court made the following.
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the petitioner –accused No.3 in Crime No.12 of 2014, on the file of Station House Officer, Sakhinetipalli Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) (x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’).
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. Coming to grant of anticipatory bail for the offence under Section 3 of the Act from the Bar laid down under Section 18 of the Act is concerned, in the recent expression of the Apex Court reported in BACHU DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR[1] particularly referring to earlier expression in VILAS PANDURANG PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[2] at para ‘6’ referring to para ‘9’ of VILAS PANDURANGA PAWAR case (supra) observed that a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(i) of the Act has been prima facie made out. If there is a specific averment in the complaint, viz., insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of Contd…2..
- 2 -
prohibition under Section 18 of the Act. In the present case, coming to the facts, no doubt, a reading of the FIR registered based on the report of the defacto-complainant, there is nothing to show of attracting of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act to the bar laid down under Section 18 of the Act for maintainability of this anticipatory bail application. Hence, anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner/A3 subject to the following conditions:-
[1] Petitioner shall execute a self-bond for Rs.25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thousand only] with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority for the like sum 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 bonds to be obtained are 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 trial before said Court, but also 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 enquiry/trial committal if any or other proceedings, obtaining of fresh bond from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and solvency earlier produced are ratifying as 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 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] Petitioner shall not enter the village where the victim and witnesses reside, until further orders by the learned Magistrate concerned on whom power is conferred by virtue of this order to modify the above condition.
[4] 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 Magistrate can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439 [2] CrPC. delegated to the learned Magistrate/trial Judge by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Magistrate/trial Judge.
Contd…3… - 3 -
[5] Petitioner shall not leave the State of AP pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge.
[6] Petitioner 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 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 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 To
1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole, East Godavari District.
2. The Station House Officer, Sakhinetipalli P.S., East Godavari District.
(Cr.No. 12 of 2014)
3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)
4. One CC to Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, Advocate (OPUC)
5. One Spare Copy.
TKK HIGH COURT SSRB.J DATE: 28-04-2014 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRL.P. No. 4796 OF 2014 RELEASE THE PETITONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST.
DRAFTED BY TKK DT.02-05-2014.
HIGH COURT SSBR.J DATE: 28-04-2014 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRL.P. No. 4796 OF 2014 RELEASE THE PETITONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST.
[1] 2014 (3) SCC 471
[2] 2012 (8) SCC 795