Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kanam Lingamma vs Ganta Chinthala Rayudu on 24 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.7454, 7480 AND 7482 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:-
These criminal petitions under Section 439(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed to cancel the bail that was
granted to the accused.
2. Since the respondents in all the above three petitions are
accused in Crime No.87 of 2021 of Lingala Police Station, Y.S.R.
Kadapa District, these three petitions are heard together and
they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The respondents are accused in Crime No.87 of 2021 of
Lingala Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. A case under
Sections 147, 148, 506, 302, 120B, 109 r/w 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered against them in the above
crime. It is a case of murder of the deceased in the said case. It
is alleged that all the accused have formed themselves into
unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased and committed
murder of the deceased.
4. All the accused were arrested on 06.08.2021 and they
were remanded to judicial custody. Some of the accused were
enlarged on bail as per order dated 05.11.2021 and other
accused were enlarged on bail as per order dated 25.11.2021.
5. These three petitions were filed by the wife of the deceased
to cancel the bail on the ground that even though investigation
is not completed and only preliminary charge sheet is filed, that
the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa
granted bail to the petitioners. It is also alleged that irrelevant
material has been taken into consideration for granting bail to
the accused. Therefore, the petitioner sought cancellation of the
bail that was granted to the accused on the aforesaid grounds.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
for the respondents/accused.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even
though the accused are involved in a grave offence relating to
murder of the deceased, that the learned VI Additional Sessions
Judge even without completion of investigation, has granted bail
to the accused. He would submit that the learned VI Additional
Sessions Judge did not consider the gravity of the offence and
the fact that investigation was not completed and as such, the
impugned orders are legally unsustainable. He would also
submit that the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge has
considered the irrelevant material for granting of bail to the
accused and thereby prayed to cancel the bail that was granted
to the accused.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
preliminary charge sheet was filed by the Investigation Officer
and after accused were in judicial custody for about 90 days
and some accused for more than 90 days, that the learned VI
Additional Sessions Judge held that the petitioners are entitled
to bail in the said circumstances. He would submit that nothing
is brought to the notice of the investigating agency that the
accused are making any attempt to interfere with the
investigation process or that they are making an attempt to
tamper with the prosecution evidence. He would also submit
that the entire investigation in this case is completed and only
R.F.S.L. report is awaited to file the charge sheet.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused
would submit that taking into all facts into consideration and
having regard to the fact that major part of the investigation was
completed and that further incarceration of the petitioners was
not warranted in the said facts and circumstances of the case
and as they are in judicial custody for more than 90 days
period, that the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge has
granted bail to the accused. He would submit that there are no
valid grounds emanating from the record that for cancellation of
the bail and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. The record reveals that the accused were arrested on
06.08.2021. Thereafter some of the accused were enlarged on
bail as per order dated 05.11.2021 after they were in judicial
custody for about 90 days period. Further, some of the accused
were enlarged on bail on 25.11.2021 after they were in judicial
custody for more than 90 days period. As preliminary charge
sheet was filed and as the VI Additional Sessions Judge found
that there was considerable progress in the investigation and as
major part of the investigation was completed, the learned VI
Additional Sessions Judge exercised her discretion in favour of
the accused and granted bail to them. Therefore, in the said
facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the
learned VI Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the
material facts of the case or that the learned VI Additional
Sessions Judge exercised her discretion arbitrarily for grant of
bail to the accused.
11. In this context, it is relevant to note that the Honourable
Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh and others Etc vs.
State of Bihar1 held that "... bail can be cancelled where (i) the
accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper
with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in
similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there
is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make
himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency and (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the
reach of his surety, etc....". It is stated that the above grounds
are illustrative and not exhaustive.
12. None of the grounds which are enumerated in the above
Judgment is found to be existing in the present case to cancel
the bail that was granted to the accused.
13. Further, as per the submission made by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, nothing is brought to the notice of
the investigating agency to show that the accused are interfering
with the course of investigation or making any attempt to
tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is not a case
where the accused have misused their liberty or bail granted to
them. Therefore, this Court finds no valid legal grounds to
cancel the bail that was granted to the petitioners.
13. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 24-02-2022
ARR
(1986) 4 SCC 481
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.7454, 7480 AND 7482 OF 2021
Date : 24-02-2022
ARR
