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:5915 of 2014 Between:
1 Vanapalli Venkata Rao, S/o late Suryanarayana, ( A-2).
2 Savu Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Rama Rao, (A-4).
3 Kammela Bapuji, S/o late Koteswara Rao, (A-5).
. Petitioners/A-2, A-4 and A-5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, through Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District.
. Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 437 & 439 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 release of the petitioners on bail in Crime No. 13 of 2014 of Tekkali, Police Station, Srikakulam District, pending investigation and trial.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the Memo of grounds filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of SRI A. RAVI SHANKAR, Advocate for the Petitioners, and of the Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent, the Court made the following
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C by the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 in Crime No.13 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 read with 34 IPC.
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The petitioners are A2, A4 and A5 out of eight accused of the crime registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 read with 34 IPC. Needless to say similar crimes were pending against them in Cr.No.12 of 2014 of Srikakulam II Town Police Station, Cr.No.18 of 2014 of Visakhapatnam III Town Police Station and Cr.No.12 of 2014 of II Town Police Station, Srikakulam. The factual matrix discloses that out of eight accused, A1 is main accused, A2 is his wife, A3 is his brother and A4 to A7 subsequently joined Directors at the instance of A1, though claimed as if only collection agents and A8 is also one of the perpetrators in luring the public under four types of schemes in embezzling to a tune of about eight crores in all including in securing deposits and saying in the claim for house plots and the like by instalments. A perusal of the case diary besides disclosing this facts show these petitioners are in judicial custody since 13-01-2014 in one crime or the other even date and enlarged in some of the crimes and their application for regular bail was ended dismissal on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, dated 05-05-2014 from the gravity of the crime saying misappropriation of nearly eight crores involved. These petitioners have taken to judicial custody in this crime through P.T. warrant from Palasa Court to the Tekkali Court from the continuous custody with effect from 13-01-2014.
4. Taking into consideration of these facts and the case diary would show that the accused got several immovable properties which they purchased from the so called amount of Rs.8 crores lured from the public, from the Act provides under Section 3, the duty of the District Collector in Districts other than Commissionarate of police where it is of the Commissioner of Police at the instance of the Investigating Officer to recommend to the Government for preliminary adjudication of the properties of the accused that has to be moved again subject to the G.O. of the Government for confirmation of adjudication under Section 6 of the Act, leave about the penal provision under Section 5 of the Act, which is punishable upto ten years the maximum. It is needless to say already taken to police custody for the purpose of investigation in one of the crimes more particularly of Cr.No.18 of 2014 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Further, it is also to be taken note of the fact that these petitioners in this crime, leave about earlier custody as on date completed 60 days and there is nothing to show charge- sheet is filed in this case so far for otherwise entitled for bail.
5. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:-
[1] Petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 shall execute 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 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. The bond to be obtained is not only to appear 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, 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 his 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/accused shall report before the Station House Officer, Tekkali P.S., Srikakulam District on every Sunday in the evening between 6 to 7 p.m. till further orders for assurance of their availability and non- interference in any manner with the witnesses.
[3] Petitioners/accused shall not enter the area where the victim and witnesses reside, until further orders being passed by the learned trial Judge relaxing the same empowering him by virtue of this order.
[4] Petitioners/accused 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 learned Judge can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439 [2] CrPC. delegated to the learned Judge by this order during pendency of proceedings before the learned Judge.
[5] Petitioners/accused shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of the learned trial Judge.
[6] Petitioners/accused shall furnish their 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 his 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 Judge 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.
//TRUE COPY// To ASSISTANT REGISTRAR For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali, Srikakulam District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kasibugga, Srikakulam District.
5. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)
6. One CC to Sri A. Ravi Shankar, Advocate (OPUC)
7. One spare copy.
BRT HIGH COURT SSRBJ DATED: 25-6-2014 ORDER:
CRL.P.NO.5915 OF 2014 BAIL HIGH COURT BRT DRAFTED ON: 26-6-2014 SSRBJ DATED: 25-6-2014 ORDER:
CRL.P.NO.5915 OF 2014 BAIL