The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that while considering the prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to a free, fair and complete investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that A.1, a home guard is accused of luring the complainant and other jobless people with the promise of home guard jobs for Rs. 8,50,000 and the A.1 received an advance payment of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Complainant. Thereafter, the complainant received one appointment order confirming his selection, however, later on, it was revealed that the appointment order was a fake. Furthermore, the complainant claimed a refund, but A.1 refused and issued threats to the complainant. The case was registered for the offences punishable under sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 420, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The present criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has no connection with the present case. Also, the most fundamental components required to prove a criminal offense against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are missing. It was furthermore contended that the allegations are civil and do not, in any way, substantiate the commission of a criminal offense as claimed.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that A balance must be made between two considerations when evaluating the request for anticipatory bail: the prohibition of harassment, humiliation, and unwarranted imprisonment of the accused, and the inability to impede a free, fair, and thorough inquiry. It is the responsibility of the Court to appropriately exercise its jurisdiction to safeguard each citizen's right to personal liberty. Everyone accused of a criminal offense is entitled to the presumption of innocence until and unless proven guilty, according to the law. Assumption of innocence is a fundamental human right. A person cannot be deprived of their freedom without a trial and without a presumption of guilt.
It was furthermore observed that the Petitioner is not directly involved in the present case and there exists no likelihood that the Petitioner would abscond from the jurisdiction of the court. Also, the Petitioner agreed to cooperate with the investigating agency
The court relied upon the judgments titled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra, Mahipal V. Rajesh, and Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar.
It was noted that the power to authorize detention is a very solemn function. It impacts citizens' freedom and liberty; hence it must be used extremely carefully. It is a terrible perspective to make an arrest first and then handle the rest. For police officers who act insensitively or with ulterior reasons, it has become a useful tool.
Based on these considerations, the court allowed the anticipatory bail.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.9563 of 2023
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
