HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN :PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRLP .NO:6542 of 2014 Between:
1 Vadagina Vijayalaxmi W/o. Raghavaiah,
2 Vadagina Raghavaiah, S/o. Narasimha Rao, ..... Petitioners/ A 2 & A3 AND The State of A.P., Through the SHO., Satyanarayanapuram P.S., Vijayawada City, Krishna District, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad . Respondent/ State 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 direct the respondent to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 323/2014 on the file of the SHO., Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, which was registered for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of IPC, in the interest of justice.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. SRIHARI, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent, the Court made the following
ORDER:-
Order:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.323 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram Police S t a t i o n , Vijayawada City, Krishna District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, the Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
These petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 out of three accused in the aforesaid Crime. Accused No.1 being the husband and the petitioners herein are the parents-in-law of the defacto-complainant. It appears that the defacto-complainant is the daughter of the paternal cousin of accused No.1.
Having regard to the same and taking into consideration of the propensity of the crime and involvement of the petitioners, they are also entitled for concession of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:
[1] Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and
3 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 learned Magistrate within two weeks and with Section 44 Cr.P.C., petition for custody and to 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 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 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 enquiry/trial or 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 Cr.P.C.
[2] Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall report on every Sunday between 5.00 to 6.00 PM before the investigating authority until further orders to be passed by the learned Magistrate relaxing this condition alone, for assurance of their availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses. It is made clear that if there is any further crime registered against the petitioners in this regard, that may be taken as one of the grounds for cancellation of this bail.
[3] Petitioners 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 condition.
[4] Petitioners 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] Cr.PC. delegated to the learned Magistrate/trial judge by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Magistrate/trial judge.
[5] Petitioners shall not leave the State 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 their passport if any, after enlargement on 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 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 her by release from custody on payment of penalty of the earlier bonds forfeited without need of enforcing against earlier sureties again.
The Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly.
To:-
//TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
2. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.
3. The Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram, Police Station, Vijayawada City.
4. One C.C. to Sri N. SRIHARI, Advocate (OPUC).
5. Two C.Cs. to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad (OUT).
6. One spare copy. Ags AGS Dt: 26/06/2014.
HIGH COURT Dr. SSRB j Dt: 25/06/2014 ORDER:-
CRL.P. NO. 6542 of 2014 BAIL