T.Lakshmana Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2308 AP

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

               CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5575 of 2019

ORDER:-

      This petition is filed by petitioner/1st informant under Section

482 r/w 439(2) of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

'Cr.P.C.') seeking cancellation of bail in C.C.No.280 of 2019 on the

file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayachoty in Crime No.378 of 2013 or Rayachoti (Urban) Police

Station, granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein who are accused in

the above Calendar Case for the offences punishable under Sections

120-B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 34 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w 6-C(2) of A.P.Act XXVI of 1971 and

Section 81 of Indian Registration Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court

below has granted bail on August, 2015 and the case was posted to

14.08.2015 for appearance of accused. On 14.08.2015, all the

accused were present, copies of all the documents were furnished to

them and the case was adjourned to 28.08.2015 for examination of

the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Since then, all these three

years one or the other of these three accused, in concert with each

other of them, are abstaining from attending the Court with common

object of stalling trial of the case and the Court below without taking

any coercive steps went on adjourning the case from time to time for

examination of accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C though the victim

is senior citizen, aged 70 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the Court below has dismissed the application seeking

cancellation of bail by the prosecution observing that the reasons of

failure of accused to appear before the Court on one or the other

reason is not sufficient ground to cancel their bail. Though there is

delay in conducting trial it can't be a sole ground to cancel the bail

granted in favour of accused as they are not absconded and

accordingly, dismissed the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Subash Chand vs. State of Haryana1 and in

Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana2 and submits that as the petitioner

failed to appear before the Court and as they are not cooperating

with the trial, the Court below ought to have cancelled the bail to the

accused.

5. Along with this petition, transfer criminal petitions which were

filed by the petitioner were also listed before this Court. The orders

passed by the Court below while dismissing the transfer petitions

filed by the petitioner shows that petitioner has conveniently

dragging on the matter from his side and he has also made several

allegations against the Judicial officers. Now the petitioner is before

this Court seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that on some

occasions the accused are not present. This Court is not able to

AIR 1988 SC 584

(1995) 1 SCC 349

appreciate the same and there are no reasonable grounds to cancel

the bail granted by the Court below.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J Date: 07.07.2021 KA

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

(Dismissed)

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5575 of 2019

Date: 07.07.2021

KA