This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the prime accused in an attempt to murder case, directing him to surrender to the Magistrate for regular bail consideration by the Sessions Judge.
Liberty to surrender before the Magistrate to take into custody and move for regular bail with notice to Public Prosecutor.
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 No.10863 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioner/A1 in Crime No.59 of 2014 of Kallur Police Station, Chittoor District registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC.
2. Heard Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional 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 A1, prime accused, among four accused. The report of the defacto complainant and the investigation from the case diary in registering the crime, charge sheet to be filed discloses that on the fateful day of occurrence i.e., on 04.08.2014, the defacto complainant asked the accused for the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- due by A1 for which A1 developed animosity and to avoid the same, planned with other accused with a pretend in calling to pay the amount and on securing his presence, accuses persons 1 to 4 attacked with sickles and knifes and even when the defacto complainant was fleeing away, they chased and A1 with sickle in his hands hacked the defacto complainant from which he sustained insized injury on the left cheek. The wound certificate show that it is an insized injury caused with a sharp edged weapon, no doubt referred as simple in nature.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the injury received by the defacto complainant alleged in the hands of the petitioner is a simple injury and that the accused Nos.2 to 4 were granted regular bail.
5. Taking into consideration the propensity of crime as the main allegation is against this petitioner and also considering his personal liberty, this application is disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioner-A1 to surrender before the learned Magistrate concerned to take into custody
under Section 44 Cr.P.C by virtue of this order and move before the learned Sessions Judge with affidavit of surrender for regular bail and with notice to learned Public Prosecutor concerned and in such an event, the learned Judge shall consider for granting of bail in favour of the petitioner with necessary conditions preferably on the same day if not atleast by the next day.
6. In the event of the police making out a case for police custody for the purpose of interrogation, the petitioner shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the further investigation remained if any, with the permission of the Magistrate concerned, within 15 days from today, who can grant such police custody, subject to necessary precautions and instructions as per the constitutional bench expression of Apex Court in
guideline No.iv in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab[1] .
__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, 23rd September, 2014 gra
[1] (1980)2 SCC 565
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner in a case involving an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the petitioner can surrender to the Magistrate and apply for regular bail while the Chillur Police Station investigation is ongoing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of PunjabDistinguished¶10
(1980)2 SCC 565 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
A1
Respondent-State
Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
