This second anticipatory bail application by an accused under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC was dismissed. The bench denied parity with another accused granted bail and found no changed circumstances warranting relief.
Petitioner directed to surrender and approach the concerned Court for regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No. 1676 of 2013
ORDER:
The petitioner is accused in Crime No.131 of 2011 of Tanuku Town Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C.
2) This is the second anticipatory bail application. The earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 11.12.2012 vide Crl.Petition No.8543 of 2012.
3) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that A-6, who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner, has been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court as per orders dated 09.01.2013 vide Crl.Petition No.9498 of 2012 and therefore, the petitioner deserves for the same relief. A further contention has been advanced that mere fabrication of the documents is not an offence and therefore, even if the accusation against the petitioner as to fabrication of the documents is considered, no offence is made out against the petitioner.
5) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State opposed the application on the ground that there are no changed circumstances.
6) It is a fact that A-6 has been admitted to anticipatory bail by this court as per orders in Crl.Petition No.9498 of 2012. One of the grounds for granting anticipatory bail to A-6 is that he was the complainant who informed the police with regard to the
offence. Coming to the case against the petitioner, he is the person who fabricated the documents and took a lead role in getting the loan sanctioned to A-1 basing on the fabricated documents. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim parity with A-6 who has been admitted to anticipatory bail as per orders in Crl.P.No.9498 of 2012. There are no changed circumstances that enure to the benefit of the petitioner to renew his request for grant of anticipatory bail.
7) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender himself before the concerned Court and move an application seeking for regular bail. In which event, the concerned Court has to consider the application on the same day as practicably as possible.
________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy
13th March, 2013 gm/vjl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner in light of another accused (A-6) receiving similar relief in a related matter.
Whether the petitioner's involvement in fabricating documents negates the grounds for granting anticipatory bail.
The Petitioner
B. Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
