THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7907 and 7790 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code („Cr.P.C.‟ in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by
the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 8 in Crime No.109 of 2022 of
Santhanuthalapadu Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and
471 read with 149 IPC, Section 66 of the Income Tax Act, 2000-2008
and Section 26(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.09.2022 at
08.00 a.m., on reliable information, Ongole Vigilance and Enforcement
Officers and Officers of the Mining Department, along with mediator,
while checking vehicles near Karthikeya Weigh Bridge on the North of
the Ongole-Kurnool State High Way, Pidatala Gudipadu,
Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, found Lorry bearing No.TN 18 BA 8661
transporting granite pieces in 25 boxes, on fake bills. It is alleged that
on examination of the Driver, he told that, he took empty container
from A9 at Chennai Port and proceeded to Cheemakurthy to meet A3.
There, he met A5 on behalf of A3, who sent him to Edge Cutting
2
Granite Factory where the container was loaded by 25 boxes of Galaxy
Granite pieces by A4, A6 and A7 and A6 gave him duplicate mining bills
and instructed him to go to Chennai Port. Hence, the above crime was
registered.
3. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has
been raised in the grounds, contended that, role of the petitioners/A1
and A8 and the overt acts attributed against them are not sufficient to
constitute the alleged offences. The other accused have used the name
of the petitioner‟s companies in order to commit illegal acts and the
petitioners have nothing to do with the said act of illegal mining and
transporting of granite. Further, it is contended that the statements
recorded by the Police do not attract any of the penal provisions
against the petitioners herein. He further contended that except
offence under Section 467 IPC, other offences are all punishable with
imprisonment of less than seven years. Further, A8, i.e., the petitioner
in Crl.P.No.7790 of 2022, has closed the mining activity way back in
the year 2018. Further, it is stated that, the petitioners are law abiding
citizens and they are apprehending arrest in the hands of the Police 3
and in the event if the petitioners are arrested their reputation in the
family and in the Society will be effected. Further, it is stated that the
petitioners will abide by the conditions imposed by the Court while
granting pre-arrest bail and they will co-operate with the investigation.
Hence, prayed to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed the bail applications stating that there are serious
allegations against the petitioners and they evaded taxes causing loss
to the Government exchequer and in support of his contention he
relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath 1 and attention of this Court is drawn to
paragraph No.5 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
"5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come
1 (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 4
with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property- grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court- process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
He further contended that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail,
they may not co-operate with the investigation and they may influence
the witnesses. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that
except Section 467 IPC, other penal provisions alleged are punishable
by imprisonment of less than seven years. Further, this Court find
some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that no overt acts are attributed against the petitioners at this stage.
Further, the judgment relied upon by the learned Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts of the case, at this
stage.
7. Taking submissions of both the learned counsel into
consideration, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the
petitioners, however, by duly taking the apprehensions of the learned 5
Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their
arrest in Crime No.109 of 2022 of Santhanuthalapadu Police Station,
Prakasam District, on their executing self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum each to
the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu Police
Station, Prakasam District;
(ii) On release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station
House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu Police Station, Prakasam District,
thrice in a week i.e. on every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday
between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till filing of the charge sheet and
apart from this, petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer, as and when they are called for investigation; and
(iii) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to influence the
witnesses or threaten them and tamper with the prosecution evidence
and the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.
Further, the petitioners 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. 6
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 findings 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.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 10th October, 2022.
GBS/SCS
