The High Court dismissed two criminal petitions filed for pre-arrest bail. The court held that the petitioner, an habitual offender involved in illicit liquor business, had no grounds to be released, citing the possibility of repeating crimes and incomplete investigation.
The criminal petitions filed for pre-arrest bail were dismissed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRL.P.No.3210 OF 2017 AND CRL.P.No.3212 OF 2017
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition No.3210 of 2017 is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioner/A2 on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.107 of 2017 of I Town Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 225, 332, 358, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
Criminal Petition No.3212 of 2017 is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioner/A2 on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.88 of 2017 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, North, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.
The petitioner is one and the same in both the criminal petitions.
This is a classic case where the petitioner having indulged in illicit liquor business, when the excise officials raided on 16.03.2017 at about 01.00 PM and found A1-B.Nagu in possession of 4.5 liters of liquor and they detained him, started drafting of special report, the petitioner/A2 along with another person came there and took way A1 from the lawful custody and attacked the excise officials and caused injury on the body of one of the excise official and on the basis of complaint lodged by Sub Inspector, State Task Force,
2
Prohibition and Excise Department, Vijayawada, the present crime was registered and issued FIR.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and not connected with any offence.
The allegations made in the complaint would show that she was accused in the other crimes. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the said contentions, it is contended that the petitioner is a women and in case of her arrest, the police may treat her in 3rd degree methods, foisting false cases against her and therefore, prayed to grant pre-arrest bail.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that she is an habitual offender and committed several offences and also involved in Crime No.14 of 2015-16, Crime No.335 of 2015-16, Crime No.351 of 2015-16,Crime No.453 of 2015-16, Crime No.472 of 2015-16, Crime No.119 of 2016-17, Crime No.164 of 2016-17 and Crime No.310 of 2016-17 of Prohibition and Excise (North) Police Station, Rajahmundry and also in Crime No.101 of 2013 and Crime No.380 of 2016 of I Town Police Station, Rajahmundry under Sections 8-B of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sections 341, 353, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
This petitioner indulged in number of crimes and she is accused in various crimes for various offences under law. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of her repeating similar crimes. The investigation is not completed. Therefore, I find no ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner
3
taking into considering her criminal back ground and consequently,
the criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions in these petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J 26.04.2017 kvrm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted pre-arrest bail given her history of habitual offences.
Whether the facts of the case require the petitioner to be released on bail pending investigation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
A2
M.Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
