Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the order passed by the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District (‘Sessions Court’) wherein the anticipatory bail initially granted to the petitioners-accused was cancelled, T Mallikarjuna Rao, J., set aside the impugned order of the Sessions Court. The Court found no ill intention on the part of the accused and directed them to be present before the jurisdictional court, twice a week, until the filing of the charge sheet.
Background
The Sessions Court, while cancelling the accused persons’ bail, observed that they had submitted photographs purportedly showing their attendance at the police station. However, upon examination, it found that most of the photographs were taken outside the premises of the police station and the material provided was deemed insufficient to demonstrate the accused’ compliance with the bail. Therefore, the accused filed the present petition and asserted that there was no intention to breach the bail conditions.
Decision & Analysis
The Court perused the available material on record and held that the observations made by the Sessions Court in the impugned order that the accused did not comply with the conditions based upon which, the anticipatory bail was granted to them, seemed perplexing.
The Court held that “the notion that the accused would attend the police station merely for photographic evidence seems implausible.” Further, it was improbable for the accused to visit the police station solely to fabricate evidence and not to comply with the bail conditions imposed upon them.
The Court stated that the Sessions Court might not have adequately addressed the contentions raised by the accused. If the accused were present outside the police station, there would have been no hindrance preventing them from entering the premises. Additionally, the photographs submitted by the accused to show their presence inside the police station refuted the assertion made by the police that they remained outside.
The Court subsequently set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court and directed the accused to be present before the jurisdictional court, twice a week, specifically on Tuesdays and Fridays between 10:00 am and 11:00 pm, until the filling of the charge sheet.
[Ramireddi Deepak v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 2512, order dated 10-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Advocate, D. Kodandarami Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
