HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE: B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRL.P. No. 6776 OF 2014 Between:
K. Sudhakar Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy AND Petitioner/Accused (in Cr, No. 129 of 2014 on the file of CCS, Hyderabad.) The State of Telanagnana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, Respondent/Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : T. Balamohan Reddy 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 an anticipatory bail in the event of petitioner/accused being arrested by the police Central Crime Station, Hyderabad in connection with Crime No. 129 of 2014, with or without sureties.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER “This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.129 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station Hyderabad, registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 406,420 and 506 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 sole accused in the above crime registered on the report of the defacto-complainant, a rice dealer with allegations that the accused having purchased rice worth of Rs.1,05,00,000/- but paid only Rs.60,00,000/- and still remaining 45 lakhs due. The rice supply transaction between them is from 30.10.2013 till 02.01.2014. The record further shows the petitioner has issued two cheques each for Rs.5,00,000/-(post dated 06.05.2014), and on 06.06.2014 two cheques each for Rs.5,00,000/- and in that way for Rs.20,00,000/- towards the purchase of rice and the same were dishonoured. A perusal of the record, it is outcome of civil liability in accusation from the contention of the accused with reference to the above no way requires for answering bail application touching merits as there is a thin line of difference between criminal liability and civil liability. From the above, the petitioner deserves for concession of anticipatory bail.
5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused subject to the following conditions:
(Contd. 2. ) . 2 .
[1] Petitioner-accused 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-accused 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-accused 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-accused shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not her 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-accused shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge.
[6] Petitioner-accused shall furnish her full address with property and Bank Account particulars and submit her 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 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 V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station Central Crime Station Team II, Hyderabad.
3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. (OUT)
4. One CC to Sri T. Balamohan Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)
5. One Spare copy BV HIGH COURT DR.SSRB.J DATED: 01-07-2014 ORDER CRL.P.NO.6776 OF 2014 DIRECTION DRAFTED: BY BV DATED : 04-07-2014 HIGH COURT DR.SSRB.J DATED: 01-07-2014 ORDER CRL.P.NO.6776 OF 2014 DIRECTION