Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chirasani Purushotham Reddy Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 September, 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT!

  
  

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY T
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAV! CHEEMALAPATI

CRL.P.No, 84423 oF 2022
Between: -
Chirasani Purushotham Reddy @ Babu, S/o. Venkataramana Reddy,
Aged about 35 years, R/o. D.No. 2-19, Guyvalagudem, Thuvvapalll,
Kambhamvaripalls Village and Mandal, Chittoor CMstrict.

+

_Petitioner/ Accused No.?,

AND
1, State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by ffs Public Prasecutor,
Hien Court Burikings, Nelapadu, Guntur District, Amaravati,
Through Station House Officer, Khatipet Palice Station, Kadana District,
2.5, Kullayappa, Sf of Police, Khalipet Police Station, Ahalipet,
Kadapa District.

 

. Respondent/Camplainant.

Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the
circumstances stated In the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,
the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.7 on

hall in the event of Ais arrest in FIR No. 132 of 2022 an the fle of

3

Khajipet Potice Station, Kadapa District on such terms and conditions.

The petition caming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of
grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the argurnents of
Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, Advacate for the Petitioner and of Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent/State, the Court made the
folowing

ORDER fo
 

 

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8443 OF 2022
ORDERS
This Criminal Petition is fied under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, LQ73 (for shor, for}, seeking

articipatory ball, by tne petitioner/A? in Cr.No.ise af 2022 of

Khajipet Police Station, Kacapa District registered for the
offence punishable under

Incian Penal Cade, 1860

 

Forest (Amendment) Act, <016, Rule 3 of A.P.Sandal Wood &
Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules ~ 1989, Section Si of Widhfe
Protection Act, [G72 and Section 3 of Pravention of Darnage fo

Pu lic Property Act, 1984.

a. The case of the srasecution, im brief, ig that on
OS,O7.2022, on reliable information, Sub-Inspector, Khaypet
Police Station afang with fis staff and mediators went fo
Kanmaiav agu pond Sikuat ed eastern S ide of reserve forest area of
Kothapeta village and found some persans are jnading red
sandal fogs inte the mini goods vehic Je and on seeing the police

"ey ;
wy the uniforms, the tricc fo escape. rhe golice tried to catcn

*

them, they started hurling stonés on police and they tried to Ai

the police with their car bearing No. TS 09 UA Fi95. He wever,

police caught three accused and selzed 15 red sandal | , ore Mahindra mini goods vehict earing No. KA 56-4296, one motor cycle bearing No. AP3O-om 289 and 3 cell phones, Hence, the

Present crime is registered,

3. Heard Sri Ravuls Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Specia! Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State,

4, Learned counsel for the petitioner, in laboration, contended that basing on the confessinn statement of co- accused, the petitioner/Accused No.? was faisely implicated! in the present crime and he was Not Invalved in the present crime, Rots further contended that the petitioner was acquitted in SC.No.235 of 2015 and in that case also, the petitioner was implicated basing on the confession statement, It is further submitted that the oetitioner is the sole breadwinner of his Family, In the event if the petitioner iS arrested, his family will

suffer huge loss. Hence, prays this Court to consider this

* L ORRGLEO RTT TELE SLOT OLLIE

5, Leamed Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the patition by contending that, t the petitianer is habitual offender and he is involved in other similar cases and if the peftioner iS granted anticipatory ball, he may indulge in si mular offences and he may tamper with the prosecute ny evidence, hence, opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same,

&. A perusal of the record shows that basing an the confession statement of the co-accused the petitioner name was implicated In the present crim & tt is Further noted that in the similar offence L&., S.0.No.235 of 2615, wherein the netitioner's name was implicated basing on the canfessional statament of co-accused and the petitioner was acquitted in the said case

?, In Bullu Das Vs. State of Sibar', while dealing with the

before 3

oft

confessional statements made by the acc used persan

police officer, the Supreme Court held as under

"s The confessional statement, Ex. 3, stated to have bean made by the gapellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Ratice Station where the offence was

registered in respect of murder of Kusum Devi, The FIk was

* gg98) 8 SCC 180

De Ny

registered at the police station OM B-8-1995 at about 12.30 Om. On 8-8-1995) if was after the appellant was arrested and orought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional Statement of the appellant. Sus 'prisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitt: Ag tin evidence, The trial court also did net consider whether such a confessional statement is adrussible in evidence er not, Tae High Court has also not

considered this aspect, The confessional statement was clearly

inadmissible as it was meade by an accused before 3 polic officer after the investi igation had started."

Q. Faking Into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case and also the co: tentions raised by both the learned

counsel anc as the petitioner is implicated in the present crime

i 2

sasinc

on the confessional statement af CO-aCcusEeC and by

taking into consideration of the judgment referred supra, this Court is inclined to Grant anticipatory ball to the petitioner/A?, however the apprehension of the fearned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor Into consideration. an the Following conditions:

QQ) The petitioner shall be reigased on ball in the avent of Ais arrest In connection with CrNoe.i32 of 2022 of the NRalipet Police station, Kadana District, on the petitioner

execuling a self bond for Rs .590,000/- (Rupees fifby thousand

only) with two sureties for a ike sum each to the satisfaction of

the Station House Officer, Khalipet Police Station, Kadapa

(i) The petitioner 3h

thet

i appear before the Station House Officer, Khatipet Police Station, Kadapa District, twice in a week i.e. on every Thursday and Saturday between 05.00 p.m., anc

O6,00 o.m., tH filing of the charge sheet; and

fu} The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tarnper with

the prosecution evidence, He shall make himself available to the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate

proper investigation in Chis case.

fiv} The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact any

XS -

witnesses under any circurmstances and any such atternpt shall

ip tt

= 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 scrupulousiy comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above

conditions, if wil be viewed seriously and if alse entails

cancellatian of the ball and in such case prosecution shall move

appropriate application for such cancellation.

Ris made clear that this order does not, In any manner, HME 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 apinion any for the

lmlted purpose of consi idering bail in the above Criminal Pati tan

and shall not have any bearin IW in any other proceedings.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, IF any,

AP TRUE CORY: ,

POR PRR Ere eee ce gee

1.The Station House Officer, Khafipe { Police Station, Kadana District,

2. Two CCs to the Special Asst. Public Prosecutor, High Court af A.P., at Amaravati(OUT)

3,0ne CC to Ravula Nagarjuna, Advocate(OPUuc)

4,One spare copy.

HIGH COURT

RO.

DT. 26-09-2022.