M.Venkat , Venkat Rathod, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Feb 2013CRLRC/186/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court revision bench reviewed the cancellation of anticipatory bail in a cheating and forgery case. It noted that while the Sessions Judge cancelled bail to investigate an imposter, the State failed to prove notices were issued to the accused. The bench held bail cannot be cancelled on re-appreciation of facts alone but modified the order, directing the accused to appear daily at the poli

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail was modified, directing the petitioners to appear daily between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM at the Station House Officer's office.

M.Venkat , Venkat Rathod, Vs The State of Andhra… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.186 & 259 OF 2013 COMMON ORDER:

¶2

These two revision cases are directed against the order dated 22.01.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.590 of 2012 in Crl.M.P.No.2216 of 2012 in Crime No.678 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners in Cr.No.678 of 2012 of K.P.H.B Police Station, registered for the offences under sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C.

¶3

The prosecution case in brief is that M.Narsimha Rao, S/o Parvaiah is owner of plot No.10, H.I.G in VI Phase, K.P.H.B. Colony. The petitioner along with other accused cast an eye on the plot since the plot remained vacant. They set up one imposter and pressed into service a registered sale deed in favour of A2Dongre Ganesh and A3-N.Durga Raj. After obtaining the sale deed in favour of A2 and A3, the availability of the plot came to be informed to the land brokers. LW4-Apuri Madhusudhan Rao on coming to know of the availability of this plot, started negotiations with A4 Suman Rathod as it was represented to him that she was the real owner of the plot. Total consideration has been settled as Rs.1,80,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakhs only). Out of Rs.1,80,00,000/-, Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs only) was paid to A4-Suman Rathod on the date of the agreement.

¶4

Subsequently, a sale deed came to be executed by A2 and A3 in favour of LW3-Baswaraj Ratnakar and Baswaraj Srinivas on 18.08.2012. An amount of Rs.1,35,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs only) came to be collected from LW4-Apuri Madhusudhan Rao on the date of sale deed. The said amount is stated to be shared by A5-Venkat Rathod and A6-Mujahid Khan. M.Narsimha Rao lodged a report before the Station House Officer, K.P.H.B Colony, Hyderabad on 28.08.2012. The said report came to be registered under sections 447, 420, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. The petitioners (A2 and A5) apprehending arrest approached the Sessions Judge for grant of pre-arrest bail by filing Crl.M.P.No.2216 of 2012. Their application came to be allowed on 09.10.2012. They surrendered before the Station House officer, K.P.H.B Police Station and executed bail bonds on 13.10.2012. The State through Station House officer, K.P.H.B Police Station filed Crl.M.P.No.590 of 2012 on 16.10.2012 seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners (A2 & A5). The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to conclusion that custodial examination of the petitioners is essential and thereby proceeded to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners by order dated 22.01.2013.

¶5

For better appreciation, I may refer paragraph Nos.40 and 42 of the order impugned in the revision and they are thus:

¶6

“40. When we go through entire record of investigation, these petitioners have played a vital role in commission of the alleged offence. The supervening circumstances is till now the imposter is unknown; it will be

¶7

known only on interrogation of these respondents Accused Nos.2 and 5. It is because these respondents rather secured and placed that imposter in execution of the document.”

¶8

“42. So, these respondents might not have committed the acts visible in hampering the investigation; their presence itself hampers the investigation and influence the investigation because they are said to be men of MLA (whose husband is said to be the Member of Parliament).”

¶9

Heard Sri H.Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.259 of 2013 and Sri Prakash Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.186 of 2013, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and

¶10

Smt A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 (LW-3 Baswaraj Ratnakar and LW-4 Apuri Madhusudhan Rao).

¶11

It is contended by Sri H.Prahalad Reddy that the petitioners have not suppressed any material on the date of filing their application before the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail and therefore, cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to them on the ground that their custodial examination is necessary cannot be sustained. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners have never been summoned by the police requiring their presence during investigation and therefore, it is impermissible for the State to contend that the petitioners have not co-operated for further investigation. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court

¶12

in Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryan a^[1] , Mahant Chand

¶13

Nath Yogi vs. State of Haryan a^[2] , Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of West Bengal^[3] , Ramcharan vs. State of M. P^[4] and judgment of this Court in Kukkadapu Bala Krishna vs. State of A. P^[5] .

¶14

It is suffice to refer paragraph No.6 of the Hazari Lal Das’s case and it is thus:

¶15

“Although the High Court did notice in the impugned order that the considerations which should be in the mind of the Court while considering the prayer for grant of bail are not the same for the purpose of cancellation of bail, yet we find that these considerations were not kept in mind and the order of the Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail was set aside. In Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana¹ this court held:

¶16

Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are; Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.”

¶17

Smt A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 (LW3-Baswaraj Ratnakar and LW4-Apuri Madhusudhan Rao) submits that as on the date of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the confession statement of A6 was not on record and therefore, the role of the petitioners could

¶18

not be known. A further submission has been made by the learned counsel that the confession statement of A6 reveals the participation of the petitioners in impersonation as well as subsequent sale transactions more particularly receipt of Rs.75,00,000/- by A5-Venkat Rathod from LW4-Madhusudhan Rao. In a way, it is her contention that custodial examination of the petitioners is essential to know the whereabouts of the person who impersonated as Narsimha Rao. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision in Prakash Kadam and others Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and another^[6] , wherein the Supreme Court held that it is not the absolute rule that considerations for cancellation of bail are different from the consideration of grant of bail.

¶19

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners are not cooperating for investigation and therefore the order impugned in the revisions is not liable to be inferred with.

¶20

In response to the contentions advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri.H.Prahlad Reddy submits that as on this day, no notice has been issued to the petitioners requiring their presence for investigation.

¶21

I have given my earnest all consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioners have been admitted to anticipatory bail on 09.10.2012. Anticipatory bail granted to them came to be cancelled on 22.01.2013. It is not the complaint of the prosecution that the

¶22

petitioners interfered with further investigation. It is well settled that the bail can be cancelled on very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances, but not on re-appreciation of facts of the case. Though prosecution asserts that the petitioners (A2 & A5) have not co-operated with the investigation, no material has been placed on record to show that the petitioners are served with the notices calling upon them to appear before the investigating officer. The learned Sessions Judge overlooked this aspect and thereby committed error in canceling the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners.

¶23

Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners in Cr.No.678 of 2012 cannot be sustained. However, the investigating officer has to be allowed to have co-operation of the petitioners in further investigation.

¶24

In that view of the matter, I am inclined to modify the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners.

¶25

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to appear daily before the Station House Officer, HPHB Police Station between 10.00 AM and 5.00 PM commencing from 15.02.2013 until further orders.

¶26

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of.

¶27

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 13^th February, 2013 sr/rkk

¶28