Sunday, 19, May, 2024
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Batre Reddy Parthap Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7568 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7568 AP
Judgement Date : 10 October, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Batre Reddy Parthap Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 October, 2022
      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

                CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7904 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal

Procedure Code („Cr.P.C.‟ in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the

petitioner/A2 in Crime No.56 of 2019 of Bhakarapeta Police Station,

Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

20(1) (d) (i) read with Section 20(1) (c), (ii), (iii), (iv), (ix) and (x) and

Section 36 read with Section 32 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act,

1967 (Amendment Act, 2016) and Rules 3 & 4 of the Andhra Pradesh

Sandalwood and Red Sanders Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 55 (2)

read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 and

Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1985

and Sections 447, 379 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short „IPC‟).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.07.2019 at

5.30 a.m., on information of the Peeleru Rural C.I., the A.S.I. along

with staff, reached bushes near Gaddla Banda, near Boreddygari Palli

Bus stop, on Devarakonda-Bhakarapeta Road, Devarakonda,

Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District. It is alleged that the

accused formed into a Red Sanders smuggling gang, criminally 2

trespassed into Seshachalam Reserve forest area with a view to

commit Red Sanders smuggling, cut live red sander trees and

committed theft of Red sander logs to smuggle the same to Bangalore.

During raid, A3 to A24 were found loading 11 red sander logs in two

vehicles, which were brought by A3 and A4 from A1 and A2 and A3 to

A24 were arrested and the 11 red sander logs were seized. Hence, the

above crime was registered against the petitioners and others.

3. Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, 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 raised in the grounds, contended that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the present case due to political reasons. It is also

contended that in the FIR, A2‟s name is shown as "Prathap Reddy @

Bujji" and the petitioner was never called as "Bujii" and he has no @

name and A2 is not the petitioner herein. It is further stated that,

though the Crime was registered in the year 2019, the Police are trying

to arrest the petitioner on the pretext that the petitioner‟s name is

"Prathap Reddy". It is also contended that the petitioner never

involved in any crime much less the alleged crime and he is law abiding

citizen and he is ex-Mandal President. It is contended that, in the 3

event if he is arrested, his political career and his reputation in the

family and the society will be affected. It is further submitted that, the

petitioner will abide by any conditions imposed by the Court while

granting the bail and will co-operate with the investigation. Hence,

prayed this Court to consider this application.

5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

opposed the application and submitted that though charge sheet is

filed, the petitioner is shown as absconding and, therefore, the present

bail application is not maintainable. In support of the said contention,

he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sanatan 1 Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and attention of this Court is

drawn to the last lines of para 3.1 of the said decision and the same

reads as under:

"3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . Thus, from the aforesaid it is found that there is a prima facie case found against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and even the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is found to be absconding. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not co-operating the Investigating Agency and absconding and against whom not only non-bailable warrant has been issued, but also the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued."

1 LL 2021 SC 568 4

Further, it is contended that in the event if the petitioner is

enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he may not co-operate with trial and may

influence the witnesses and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. To the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that though the petitioner is very much available in the

village, he was shown as absconding, now the police are trying to

arrest due to political reasons as if the petitioner is A2.

7. Taking submissions of both the learned counsel into

consideration and as charge sheet has already been filed and the

judgment relied upon by the learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor is not relevant to the facts of the case, as no proclamation

was issued against the petitioner herein, excepting showing A2 as

absconding and further there is some force in the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner is a Ex-

Mandal Parishad President, the question of his absconding does not

arise, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner,

however by duly taking the apprehensions of the learned Special

Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Court and

on such surrender, the concerned Court shall release the petitioner on 5

bail, on his executing self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five

thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction

of the concerned Court; and

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten

the witnesses under any circumstances in this regard and any such

attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses

and the petitioner shall not tamper the evidence.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above

conditions and in case of infraction of the same, the prosecution is at

liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 10th October, 2022.

GBS/SCS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 
 
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

 
 
 
 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

Campus Buzz