IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADE FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRL.P.No. 5797 of 2014 Between:
Smt. Thummala Suguna, W/o Late Vevek Ramarao Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: SRI. G. RAMA GOPAL 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 grant bail to the petitioner / Accused No.1 in the event of his arrest in Connection with Crime No.164/2013 on the file of the III Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District.
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.164 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, III town Police Station, Kothagudem district, registered against her for offences punishable under Section 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 two accused. The defacto-complainant levelled a complaint against the petitioner and another stating that having executed a contract for sale in respect of immovable property of A.1 in favour of the defacto-complainant with intent to cheat her by not performing, he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of A.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the quash proceedings filed by A.2 to quash crime against him was allowed by this Court (by another Bench) though her quash application was not considered in saying the case was in progress of investigation to face trial. The contention that to attract the offence of cheating under Section 420 of I.P.C. there must be prima facie accusation of dishonest intention which is lacking is untenable, apart from pre-mature but for to say from rival contention of the learned Public Prosecutor of non-mentioning of earlier crime itself shows guilty mind to draw inference. No observation beyond this is required but for to say there is a prima facie accusation. Taking into consideration of these facts and the petitioner is a lady and retired employee aged about 61 years, it is just to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner-A.1.
2 4 . 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.
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 Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam.
2. The III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, Khammam District.
3. The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District.
4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad (OUT)
5. One CC to Sri. G. Rama Gopal, Advocate (OPUC)
6. One Spare copy KK HIGH COURT DR.SSRBJ DT. 13-6-2014 BAIL ORDER CRL.P.NO.5797 OF 2014 DIRECTION Drafted by: KK Drafted on: 17-6-2014 HIGH COURT DR.SSRBJ DT. 13-6-2014 BAIL ORDER CRL.P.NO.5797 OF 2014 DIRECTION