Criminal Procedure vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 4849 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5221 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), is filed by the

petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking to grant pre-arrest bail in

Crime No.493 of 2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau,

Rajamahendravaram South Police Station, East Godavari

District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

7-B read with 8(A) and 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition

(Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on

24.04.2022, on reliable information, the Enforcement Sub

Inspector, Rajamahendravaram South Police Station, along with

staff conducted raid and caught one person, who is preparing ID

liquor in three pots methods and seized 35 liters of liquor in one

plastic can, three iron drums containing 600 liters of FJ Wash.

Hence, the above crime was registered.

3. Heard Sri Innamuri Balasubrahmanyam, learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contended

that investigation is almost completed and the petitioner is being

called to police station daily under suspicion and making him to sit

in the station from morning to evening and he was induced as

accused person in the crime basing on the statement of the

mediators at the time of offence. He further submits that the

petitioner has not committed any crime and prayed this court to

grant anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner will definitely

cooperate with the investigation and he will abide any conditions

imposed by this court.

5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgment in Harjit Singh Vs.

Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and another [Criminal Appeal No.883

of 2021] and draw the attention of this Court to para 7.5, wherein

it is stated as follows:

"9. ....It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere

with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No.272 of

2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court

granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally

incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its

discretionjudiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with

the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this

Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other

circumstances, the factor to be borne in mind while considering an

application for bail are:

(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground

tobelieve that the accused had committed the fofence;

(ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if

released on bail;

(v) Character, beahviour, means, position and standing of

the accused;

(vi) Likelihood of the offence beidng repeated;

(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses beding

influence; and

(viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of

bail.

Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is

no dispute with regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in granting bail. The antecedents shows that he is a

habitual offender. The above said judgment is not applicable to

the facts of the present case.

6. On the other hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

opposed the application on the ground that petitoner does not

deserve for indulgence of this court for granting anticipatory bail as

he has previous crijinal history and placed instructions on record

sshowing that the petitoenr involved in 14 crimes i.e., Crime Nos.

243/2022, 154/2022, 50/2022, 1789/2021, 1772/2021,

1278/2021, 684/2021, 619/2021, 168/2021, 62/2021,

744/2020, 401/2020, 299/2020 and 113/2020 of

Rahamahendravaram South and he is habitual offender and there

is every likelihood of petitioner may tamper the evidence and

influence the witnesses in the event if the petitioner is granted bail

and seeks dismissal of the application.

6. A perusal of the complaint, in the present crime, the

petitioner has shown as accused for the offence under section

Excise Act wherein he is habit of involving in other crimes of

similar nature.

In view of the facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

1st AUGUST, 2022 Rmn