The Court dismissed the bail application invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. to cancel the original order for transitory to avoid technicalities, finding the petitioner ineligible due to prolonged absconding and late surrender.
Original bail order cancelled forthwith; bail application dismissed; petitioner taken to judicial custody.
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.
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9858 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C by the petitioner-A.7 in P.R.C.No.39 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Lakkireddipalli in Crime No.22 of 2004 of Ramapuram Police Station.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the RespondentState and perused the material placed on record.
3. This petitioner is the 7th accused in the above crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case against the other accused was split up as P.R.C.No.36 of 2007, trial conducted in S.C.No.19 of 2008 and it appears the case ended in acquittal. The petitioner also being the 7th accused among seven or more accused. In the course of hearing as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted regular bail at the crime stage during pendency of the investigation and however jumped the bail. It is not even his case, he later ever surrendered. It appears only after the S.C.No.19 of 2008 ended in acquittal and after issuance of N.B.Ws. against him about 8 years ago, he surrendered before the learned
Magistrate concerned (Committal Court), where the P.R.C. was split up and moved for recall of N.B.Ws. and the same ended in dismissal vide order of the Magistrate dated 01.07.2014. It is there from the petitioner moved for regular bail vide Crl.M.P.No.1028 of 2014 and the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, by order, dated 04.08.2014, dismissed the same with a detailed order running in four pages including with the observation that the factum of the case against other accused persons ended in acquittal in S.C.No.19 of 2008, is not a ground for lending any concession of bail to the petitioner, who chosen to surrender only on 01.07.2014 in filing application for recall that was ended in dismissal in Crl.M.P.No.499 of 2014 on the even date and taken to judicial custody. Hence, the petitioner not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. It is from the factual matrix, who moved the present bail application, in fact a perusal of the record, no where shows the original bail order was cancelled as required under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. However, having availed the bail and abused the same and was absconded for several years and chosen to come forward only on 01.07.2014, he is not entitled to the concession of bail and when these facts are brought to the notice of the Court, as laid down by the Privy Council in Surajmull Nagoremull
v. Triton Insurance Company Limited[1] , no Court can
perpetrate any illegality or impropriety. Since the petitioner/A.7 is before this Court by invoking under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to sub-serve the ends of justice, to avoid technicalities in the bail order in force, the original order is now cancelled forthwith and the application for bail dismissed as he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. In the result, the bail application is dismissed.
____________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 21st August 2014 mar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a bail order must be cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. where the original order is silent despite the accused absconding and appearing years later.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail concession when he absconded for several years and only surrendered after acquittal of co-accused.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to avoid technicalities in a bail order to sub-serve ends of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surajmull Nagoremull v. Triton Insurance Company LimitedExplained¶8
Surajmull Nagoremull v. Triton Insurance Company Limited [1] 1925 Privy Council 83
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner-A.7
The State
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
