( 1 ) BY this application filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioners seek directions to the Principal Sessions Judge, kadapa to release them on bail in the event of their appearing before him in connection with Crl. A. No. 1283 of 2003, pending before this Court, which was filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 11-2-2003, passed in S. C, No. 159 of 1999, acquitting them of the offences for which they were tried.

( 2 ) THE petitioners who were tried for the offences under Section 498-A, 302 r/w. Section 34, 304-B and 201 r/w. Section 34 I. P. C. , were acquitted by the Principal Sessions judge, Kadapa, in S. C. No. 159 of 1999, by his judgment dated 11-2-2003. Therefore, the State moved in appeal before this Court in Crl. A. No. 1283 of 2003. This Court, on 17-12-2003, while admitting the criminal appeal ordered issuance of warrants against the petitioners under Section 390 Cr. P. C. and directed the police authorities to produce them before the Principal Sessions judge, Kadapa.

( 3 ) IN pursuance of the above order, the registry issued warrants directing the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, to arrest the petitioners, and the relevant portion of the warrant, reads as follows : the Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah, cuddapah District are directed to arrest the accused namely, (1) Shaik Mullapalli shamshad Begum, W/o Rahamathullah (2) shaik Mullplli Kamathulla, S/o Rahamathullah (3) Shaik Mullapalli Tabrajullah, S/o rahamathullah (4) Shaik Mullapali kareemulla, S/o Rahamathullah, wherever they are found and produce them before the principal Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. You are also further directed to return this warrant, as early as possible to this Court with a detailed report stating the manner in which it has been executed or if not executed the reasons why it has not been executed. Herein fail not. "

( 4 ) IT is the apprehension of the petitioners that in view of the order dated 17-12-2003 passed by this Court, either in the event of the police authorities executing the warrant and producing them before the principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, or the petitioners on their own volition appearing before him, there is likelihood of the Principal sessions Judge, Kadapa, remanding them to judicial custody. The basis for the apprehension is that in pursuance of similar orders passed by this Court in Crl. A. No. 1283 of 2003, which was filed by the state against the order of acquittal, on the production of the accused therein before the concerned Principal Sessions Judge were remanded to custody. Therefore, they pray that directions be issued to the Principal Sessions judge, Kadapa, to release them on bail in the event of their being arrested and produced before him or on the petitioners appearing before him on their own volition in pursuance of the orders of this Court.

( 5 ) IN fact, when this matter was taken up for hearing, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy and Sri T. Bali Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, brought to our notice that whenever the accused are arrested and produced before the Courts concerned or on the accused appearing before the said Courts in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court under section 390 Cr. P. C. , in the appeals filed by the State against acquittal of the accused, the Presiding Officers of the concerned courts atleast in some cases are remanding the accused to judicial custody, which practice is inconsistent with the fundamental right, namely right to life, enshrined under article 21 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the fact that accused in such cases have already been acquitted after a full-fledged trial by the trial Courts, they submitted that such remand to judicial custody of the accused, is certainly not in accordance with the scheme adumbrated in section 390 of Cr. P. C.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the aforementioned contention, it would be appropriate to make a reference to Section 390 of Cr. P. C. , which reads as follows : s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document