Dismissed

Majeti Prakash v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC29 Oct 2009CRLP/8628/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioners were accused of purchasing PDS rice for black marketing, violating Section 420 IPC and other statutes. The court denied bail primarily due to the petitioner No.1's prior history of infringing similar bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

Majeti Prakash Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8628 of 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.311 of 2009 on the file of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 17 of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001.

¶4

Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy. When it appears that a respectable person is falsely implicated in a criminal case, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may exercise discretionary powers to see that an innocent person is not put to unnecessary harassment and his prestige is not lowered in the society. The same does not apply to a person who is indulging in malpractices or criminal activities continuously.

¶5

The petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, earlier, approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.1895 of 2009, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.43 of 2009 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, and this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted him anticipatory bail on 06.04.2009. When once a person obtained bail from the Court, it is expected that he would act as a law abiding citizen, attend the Court regularly, not tamper the prosecution evidence and not repeat such acts in future, but unfortunately, the allegations against the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 show that he has again indulged in similar criminal activities.

¶6

The case of the prosecution is that on 14.10.2009 at about 10.30 A.M., when the D.S.P., Vigilance and Enforcement, along with his staff surprised Srinivasa Rice Mill of petitioner No.1, rice in huge quantity was found, and enquiries revealed that petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 and his clerk i.e., petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 used to collect P.D.S. rice, meant for white card holders, from the dealers, in Vijayawada, transport it through Auto No.16 TX 2416 and deliver the same at the mill. On 13.10.2009, at about 6.30 P.M., the D.S.P., Vigilance & Enforcement, Guntur, intercepted the auto and seized 16 bags of P.D.S. rice in the presence of mediators.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that clause 17 of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 is applicable only to the fair price shop dealers and it is not applicable to the petitioners’ case. It is also his submission that section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act is a bailable offence and Section 420 I.P.C. is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶8

The technical aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be gone into at the time of deciding the bail application. What is to be seen is whether a prima facie case has been made out or not.

¶9

According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, purchasing of P.D.S. rice and diverting it to black-marketing itself attracts the provision of Section 420 IPC.

¶10

In view of the above allegations made against the petitioners and also the conduct of petitioner No.1 that even after obtaining bail in similar case, he is indulging in similar offences, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

The criminal petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J

¶13

29^th October, 2009 v v

Majeti Prakash v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majeti Prakash v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanduri Venu Gopala Raju Vs Nanduri Rama Devi

C. Kanaka Ratnam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E.Gangadharappa,A-2 Vs The State of a.P., through SHO of Prohibition and Excise

Bommavaram Devender Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Patan Moddin Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Padesh

Pittala Chiranjeevi, Vs The State of A.P.