The Court disposed of two anticipatory bail petitions by granting the petitioner liberty to surrender before the Magistrate and move for regular bail, with a notice to the Public Prosecutor.
Liberty to surrender before the learned Magistrate and move 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 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10056 and 10057 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the same petitioner i.e. A10 in Crime No.310 of 2014(Crl.P.No.10056 of 2014) and A.11 in Cr.No.311 of 2014(Crl.P.No.10057 of 2014), on the file of the Station House Officer, Khammam II Town Police Station, Khammam district registered against him along with others for the same offences in both the crimes punishable under Sections 120(b), 193,198,260,420,468,463,465,472 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.
2.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practicing advocate though the remand report speaks he is a clerk under an Advocate. The facts of the case are that one V.Swathi filed a private complaint against her husband and in-laws on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam that was referred to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the same was registered as Cr.No.40 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323,447,457,498-A and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which crime bail was granted to the husband-A.1 who produced fake sureties forged and fabricated through his advocate by tampering with the signature and seal of the gram panchayat, Kachirajugudem as if issued by said grampanchayat and it is therefrom the crimes herein are registered and the petitioner’s contention in seeking anticipatory bail in the two crimes is that he is innocent and falsely implicated by police. In fact, the learned
Sessions Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail applications moved by him respectively covered by Crl.M.P.Nos.1132 of 2014 in Cr.No.310 of 2014 and 1133 of 2014 in Cr.No.311 of 2014 by separate orders dated 13.08.2014. In the remand report of the accused persons, this petitioner is arrayed as A.10 and A.11 respectively and that he is also a habitually offender in saying as usual and on the advice of him, the others prepared forged and fabricated surety bonds and issued as if that of grampanchayat, Kachirajugudem village and produced the same before the Court and furnished surety to the A.1 of crime No.40 of 2014. The learned Sessions Judge therefrom dismissed the anticipatory applications with the observation that when the remand report shows propensity of the crime against the petitioner, he is not entitled to concession of bail. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the very taking cognizance in this case is wrong and placed reliance on judgment of another Bench of this Court in Setti
China Venkata Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] which is in relation to Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of I.P.C. in not filing the complaint by the Court or to support authorised as contemplated by section 340 of Cr.P.C. by taking cognizance. Even the plain reading of Section 195(1) speaks the bar is only for taking of cognizance. Undisputedly, these are the crimes pending. The question of taking cognizance arises after police files final report. It is premature for this Court to go into that aspect as it is pre-cognizance stage. Thereby, there is prima facie accusation against the petitioner and the same rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge.
4. However, to balance the propensity of the crime with personal liberty, instead of dismissal, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and move for regular bail with a notice to the
learned Public Prosecutor concerned and in such an event, the learned Magistrate, shall give disposal of the application, preferably on the same day or at least by next day.
Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,
Date: 02.09.2014, Vvr.
[1] 2014(2) ALD (Crl) 4(AP)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner with a criminal record mandating surrender and regular bail application is entitled to interim liberty under anticipatory bail.
Whether to balance the petitioner's criminal propensity with personal liberty by granting temporary bail rather than dismissal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Setti China Venkata Rao Vs. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶5
[1] 2014(2) ALD (Crl) 4(AP)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
A10 and A11
State of Andhra Pradesh
B. Siva Sankara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
