THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6090 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟), seeking
anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/A1 in Cr.No.79 of 2022 of
Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 379, 109, 120(B),
307, 353 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short „IPC‟)
and section 20(1)C (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (x) of A.P.Forest (Amendment)
Act 2016 (A.P.Act No.15 of 2016), Sec 20 (d) (i) (a) (b) (2) (a)
(b), Sec 29 (2) (b) (4) (a) (i) (ii) (b) of A.P.Forest (Amendment)
Act 2016 (A.P.Act No. 15 of 2016), Rule 3 of A.P.Sandal Wood and
Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules 1969, Sec 51 of Wildlife Protection
Act 1972 and Sec.3 of PDPP Act 1984.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Accused Nos.2 to
6 entered into criminal conspiracy to plunder the precious red
sanders logs from the reserve forest to smuggle the same into
international market to acquire wrongful gain in illegal ways and
also conspiring even to kill the officials when try to apprehend
them while they were transporting red sanders and that the
Accused No.6 was remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.6
confessed the petitioner involvement in the offence and basing on
the said confession statement, the petitioner was arrayed as
Accused No.1. Hence, the above crime was registered against the
petitioner.
2
3. Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds, contends that, prior to 2014, the petitioner used to do the similar offences, but after 2014, he left all the activities of the above said offence and started his life by doing petty kirana business. Basing on the confession statement of Accused No.6, the petitioner was roped into this crime as Accused No.1 saying that he has given directions to the other accused how to do the offence. He further contended that the petitioner has old aged parents who are bedridden and he is the only person to look after his bedridden parents and in the event of his arrest, he will be put to hardship and the relatives and people in the society thinks that the petitioner has again started doing the same offence and his reputation in the family and in the society will be affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, the main accused i.e., Accused No.6 got regular bail before sessions Court vide Crl.M.P.No.402 of 2022 on 11.07.2022 and the same was placed on record. Hence, prays this Court to consider this application.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that he has written instructions wherein it shows that the petitioner has involved in 14 other cases and he is a habitual offender. In support of his contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the Hon‟ble Supreme Court Judgment reported in "Indresh Kumar 3 Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another1". He further submits that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, they may hamper the process of investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
6. A perusal of the record shows that basing on the confession statement only the petitioner got implicated as Accused No.1 in the present crime. A perusal of the written instructions shows that, the petitioner was a habitual offender till 2014. Subsequent to that there are no crimes against the petitioner, till today. So, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stopped doing the crimes since more than 7 to 8 years has some force.
7. In "Indresh Kumar Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another2" relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the apex Court held as follows:
"The High Court has ignored the materials on record including incriminating statements of witnesses under Section 164/161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence. 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610 4 The High Court has granted the respondent-accused bail, without considering the heinous nature of the allegations against him, the gravity of the offence alleged and severity of the punishment in the event of ultimate conviction, only because a coaccused had also been granted bail by the High Court".
8. In so far as the judgment relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor is concerned, no doubt it is a settled principle of law. In the present case, as on today there is no material to show prima facie that other than the confession statement of the co-accused there is no material to show involvement of the petitioner. As such, the above decision has also been taken due note in the present case.
9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and material available on record and submissions made by both the learned counsel and as there are no crimes against the petitioner from 2014 to till date and he has been implicated based on confession statement and no other material was placed to connect the petitioner with this present crime, as such this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ A1, however the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing the following conditions.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.79 of 2022 of Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, on the petitioner executing a self bond for 5 Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till filing of charge sheet.
(iii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate proper investigation in this case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact any witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation.
Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation.
It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the finding in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of 6 considering bail in the above Criminal Petition and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 17.08.2022 AG 7 40 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6090 OF 2022 Date : 17.08.2022 AG