Guddeti Ramnadh Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5204 AP

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6090 OF 2022

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code

of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (for   short,   „Cr.P.C.‟),   seeking

anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/A1 in Cr.No.79 of 2022 of

Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District registered for

the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 379, 109, 120(B),

307, 353 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short „IPC‟)

and section 20(1)C (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (x) of A.P.Forest (Amendment)

Act 2016 (A.P.Act No.15 of 2016), Sec 20 (d) (i) (a) (b) (2) (a)

(b), Sec 29 (2) (b) (4) (a) (i) (ii) (b) of A.P.Forest (Amendment)

Act 2016 (A.P.Act No. 15 of 2016), Rule 3 of A.P.Sandal Wood and

Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules 1969, Sec 51 of Wildlife Protection

Act 1972 and Sec.3 of PDPP Act 1984.


2.    The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Accused Nos.2 to

6 entered into criminal conspiracy to plunder the precious red

sanders logs from the reserve forest to smuggle the same into

international market to acquire wrongful gain in illegal ways and

also conspiring even to kill the officials when try to apprehend

them while they were transporting red sanders and that the

Accused No.6 was remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.6

confessed the petitioner involvement in the offence and basing on

the said confession statement, the petitioner was arrayed as

Accused No.1. Hence, the above crime was registered against the

petitioner.
                                 2



3.    Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has

been stated in the grounds, contends that, prior to 2014, the

petitioner used to do the similar offences, but after 2014, he left all

the activities of the above said offence and started his life by doing

petty kirana business. Basing on the confession statement of

Accused No.6, the petitioner was roped into this crime as Accused

No.1 saying that he has given directions to the other accused how

to do the offence. He further contended that the petitioner has old

aged parents who are bedridden and he is the only person to look

after his bedridden parents and in the event of his arrest, he will be

put to hardship and the relatives and people in the society thinks

that the petitioner has again started doing the same offence and

his reputation in the family and in the society will be affected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, the main

accused i.e., Accused No.6 got regular bail before sessions Court

vide Crl.M.P.No.402 of 2022 on 11.07.2022 and the same was

placed on record. Hence, prays this Court to consider this

application.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that he has written

instructions wherein it shows that the petitioner has involved in 14

other cases and he is a habitual offender. In support of his

contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court Judgment reported in "Indresh Kumar

Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another1". He further

submits that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, they may

hamper the process of investigation and tamper with the

prosecution evidence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for

dismissal of the same.

6. A perusal of the record shows that basing on the

confession statement only the petitioner got implicated as

Accused No.1 in the present crime. A perusal of the written

instructions shows that, the petitioner was a habitual offender

till 2014. Subsequent to that there are no crimes against the

petitioner, till today. So, the contention raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stopped doing the

crimes since more than 7 to 8 years has some force.

7. In "Indresh Kumar Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh &

Another2" relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the

apex Court held as follows:

"The High Court has ignored the materials on record

including incriminating statements of witnesses under

Section 164/161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be

admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the

prima facie case against an accused in an application for

grant of bail in case of grave offence.

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

The High Court has granted the respondent-accused

bail, without considering the heinous nature of the

allegations against him, the gravity of the offence alleged

and severity of the punishment in the event of ultimate

conviction, only because a coaccused had also been granted

bail by the High Court".

8. In so far as the judgment relied on by the learned Public

Prosecutor is concerned, no doubt it is a settled principle of law. In

the present case, as on today there is no material to show prima

facie that other than the confession statement of the co-accused

there is no material to show involvement of the petitioner. As such,

the above decision has also been taken due note in the present

case.

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and

material available on record and submissions made by both the

learned counsel and as there are no crimes against the

petitioner from 2014 to till date and he has been implicated

based on confession statement and no other material was placed

to connect the petitioner with this present crime, as such this

Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ A1,

however the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing the following conditions.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner

shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection

with Cr.No.79 of 2022 of Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R.

Kadapa District, on the petitioner executing a self bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for a like

sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Badvel

Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House

Officer, Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, once in

a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon

till filing of charge sheet.

(iii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper

with the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to

the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate

proper investigation in this case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact

any witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall

be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall

not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the

investigation.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the

above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above

conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation

of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate

application for such cancellation.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit

or restrict the rights of the police or the investigating agency from

further investigation as per law and the finding in this order be

construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of

considering bail in the above Criminal Petition and shall not have

any bearing in any other proceedings.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 17.08.2022 AG

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6090 OF 2022

Date : 17.08.2022

AG