Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chirasant 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, TWC THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
> PRESENT : a
THE HONQURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVE CHEEMALAPAT!

  
 
  
  

CRLPING. 738% of 2022
Between 4
Chirasant Purushotharm Reddy @ rane 8 S/s. YVankataramana Reddy
Aged about 35 years, R/o. D.No. 2-13, Guvvalagudem, Thuyvapailt
Kambhamvaripalic Village and Mandal, Chittoor District
Joo Petitioners Accused No.7.
ARB
1.5 tate of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Presecutor,
Hig Court Busldings, Nelapa adu, Guntur Nstnict, Amaravatl,
Trough Station House Officer T Sundupalll Police Station, Kadapa District.
2.J. Chandra Sekhar, Si of Police, 8 advel iR} Police Station, Badivel (R},
Kadapa District.

. Respondent/ Complainant,

Fetition filec) under Section 438 of €r.P.0. 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 Dall in the event of His arrest in FIR No, 91 of 2022 on the file of

Sadvei(R} Fotice Station, Kadans District on such terms and canditions.

The petition coming an for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of grounds filed In support thereaf and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Special Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respandent/State, the Court made the following

ORDER :-

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.P38? OF 2022 ORDER?

This Criminal Petition is fled under Section 438 of the Cade of Criminal Procedure, 19°73 (for short, (CrP.cCl, anticipatory ball, by the oetisianer/Al in Cr.No.Qi of 2022 of

Badyel Rural Pdlice Station, ¥.5.R. Radapa District registered for

the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 379, 108,

1208}, 30%, 353 rfw 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {for

29 CY (b) 64) G8) G) G) Cb) of ALP. Ferest fAmendment} Act, 2016, Rule 3 of A.P.Sandal Wood & Red

Sanders Wood Transit Rufes - P86, Section Si of Wildiffe

rotection Act, 197s and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to

Pubic Pranerty Act, 1984.

fod om ai ih

Oy ft

se of the prasecufion, iA brief, is that an 14.07, 2082, om reliable inforrnation, Sub-Inspector, Badvel! Rurab Police Station aiang with his staff and mediators went to remote forest area, about § km west side fram Rekalakunta vitages, Adusuvaripall, Badvel and found 8 members are

loading rec sandal iegs into 8 car bearing No, TS 09 UA Figs

and on seeing the police in the unifa , they tried to escape, The police tried to catch them, they s ted hurling stones on

police and shouted to kill police, However, palice caught shx sccused and the rernaining two were escaned and selzed 26 rec Sandal logs, one Mahindra Verito car, ane mobile phone. Hence,

the present crime is registered.

3, Heard Sr Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the petitioner and fearned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State,

4. Learned counsel for the petit tioner, im elaboration, contenced that basing on the confession statement of co- accused, the petitionerfAccused No.1 was falsely implicated in the present crime and he was not involved in the present crime. if is further contended that the petitioner was acqguittecd In SC.Noa.235 of 2615 and in that case also, the petitioner was implicated basing on the confession staternent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of Ais family. In the event if the petitioner is arrested, his Farmily will suffer Auge loss. Hence, prays this Court to cansider this

application

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prasecutor oomosed the petition by contending that, the petitioner is habitual offender and he is involved in other similar cases and i! e petitioner is granted anticipatory ball, he may induige in sim milar offences and he may tamper with the orosecution evidence, hence, Gppased the petition and prayed for disrrisse of the same

&. & perusal of the record shows that basing on the confession statement of the co-accusedl the petitioner name

was implicated in the present crime. It is further noted that in

the similar offence Le., S.C.No.235 of 2015, wherein the

a3 "3 ry a oO

a3 hy ty ui $ if $ Ee an a Be

getitioner's name was implicated basing « staternent of co-accused and the petitioner was acquitted in the sald case

F in Bulflu Das Vs. State of Bihar', while dealing with the confessic onal statements made by the accused persons before a

police officer, the Supreme Court held as under:

®2 The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before fhe police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station ' where the offence was

registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was

£1998) 8 SCC 3 a

& registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.36 p.m. On 9-8-1995) it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessiona! Statement of the appellant, Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence far admitting it in evidence. The trial court ai iss did not consider whether such a confessional statement Js admissible in evidence or net, The High Court has alsa not considered this aspect. The confessiona! statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a palice officer after the investi gation had started." 9, Taking into conside or the facts and circumstances of the case and alsa the contentions raised ty both the learned cOUNSE!] and as the petitioner Is implicated in the present crirne asing on the confessional statement of Cco-accused and by taking inte co sideration of the judgment referred supra, this Court is inclined to grant antic cipatery ball to the petitioner/Al, however the aporehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following conditions: (3) The petitioner shall be released on ball in the event of Ris arrest in connection with [email protected] of 2022 of the Badve! Rural Police Station, ¥.S.R, Kadapa District, on the petitioner

Gxeculing a self bond for Rs.0,000/- fRupees fifty thousand

ost

nly) with two sureties for a Ike sum each to the satisfaction of

Wricer, Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R,

rng

the Station House Kadapa Cistrict.

GO The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.o.R. Kadapa District, twice na week ie. on every Tuesday and Friday between 05. OO om.,

and 06.00 p.m., tN fling of the charge sheet; and

fi) The petitioner shall nat make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Ne shall make fi imself avaliable to the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate

proper investigation In this case.

fv} The petitioner shall not cirectly or indirectiy contact any witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall he construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall mot 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 shove

conditions, it will be viewed seriously and ik also entails

cancellation of the ball and in such case prasecution shall move

appropriate aoplication for such cancellation,

if is made clear that this order does not, In any manner, Hr or restrict the rights of the pollce 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 ball in the above Criminal Petition

and shall not have any bearing In any other proceedings.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shai stand clase.

Sdi. SK. MO. RAF! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ff PRUE CORY // a "