The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the power to authorize detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool for police officers who lack sensitivity or Act with oblique motives.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner is a railway employee and he works with the complainant, he cheated the Complainant and two others by collecting a total of Rs 13 Lakhs for the 5 cents house sites bits in Renigunta area. Then, the Petitioner gave them Anubhava Druvikarana Patrams, which contained the signatures and seals of Tahsildar, Renigunta. Thereafter, when they went to the house to site in order to start construction, then, the revenue officials came to them and objected to undertaking any construction. When they showed them the certificates, the revenue officials claimed them fake. Furthermore, when they questioned the complainant about the same, he threatened to kill them if they filed a police complaint. The complaint was registered for the offense under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offense are not attracted to this case and the Petitioner never borrowed the money from the complainants. It was furthermore submitted that the present case is lodged only to grab money from the Petitioner.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that before an arrest is made, the specific role of the accused as well as the type and seriousness of the accusation must be fully understood while evaluating the plea for the granting of anticipatory bail. In the ordinary course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail if there is any question as to the sincerity of the prosecution. In order to safeguard a citizen's right to personal liberty, the Court must appropriately exercise its jurisdiction. The idea that bail is the norm and the jail is the exception is also widely acknowledged. Arresting the accused should only be done in extreme situations where it is absolutely necessary given the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Arrest should always be the last resort.
It was furthermore observed that in a criminal case, even though the F.I.R. might not be substantive, it is nevertheless an important and valuable piece of evidence. In order to gather early information on the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, it is imperative that the F.I.R. be promptly lodged. The advantage of spontaneity is lost if the F.I.R. is not filed on time; too much consultation or contemplation increases the risk of a colored version, an embellished narrative, or a manufactured story. Certainly, filing the F.I.R. as soon as possible provides a guarantee on the veracity of the informant's account. An immediately filing of a First Information Report provides a firsthand account of the events and the identity of the perpetrator. In the present case, the FIR was lodged after a delay of 5 years and the complainant failed to make any enquiry about the genuineness of the documents.
The court noted that the power to authorize detention is a very solemn function. It must be used extremely carefully and cautiously because it impacts citizens' freedom and liberty. It is despicable to make an arrest first and then handle the rest. For police personnel who act with shady motives or lack sympathy, it has become a handy tool.
It was furthermore noted that the Petitioner is an employee of the Railway Department. In case of his arrest by the Police, he may lose his employment. It is not the Prosecution’s case that the Petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation and he is not available for interrogation. There is no indication of a likelihood that the Petitioner would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. The Petitioner has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists reasonable ground for the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal Petition.
Case Title: G Nagabhushanam V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1085 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: M Venkateswarla Reddy
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
