The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that it appears improbable that the petitioners' visit to the police station was solely to fabricate evidence. Also, if the petitioners were indeed present outside the police station, there would have been no hindrance preventing them from entering into the premises.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the present criminal revision is filed against the order passed by the Learned Session Judge in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners. The learned Session Judge observed that the 8-10 photographs submitted by accused outside the police station deemed insufficient to demonstrate the fact that the Petitioner had complied with the conditions.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the conception that the Petitioner would attend the police station merely for photographic evidence seems implausible. It appears somewhat perplexing.
It was furthermore observed that it is unlikely that the petitioners went to the police station with the intention of fabricating evidence. This Court believes that the petitioners' arguments may not have been sufficiently addressed by the learned Sessions Judge. if they had been there outside the police station, nothing would have stopped them from entering the premises. The photos that the petitioners' attorney presented also demonstrate their presence within the police station, refuting the police's claim that they stayed outside.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the order passed by the learned session judge.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the criminal revision case.
Case Title: Ramireddi Deepak V. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 308 OF 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: SRI. D. KODANDARAMI REDDY
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
