Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.MADHUSUDAN RAO
Shaik Layak - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. M.P. No. 2810/80
Decided On : 03-26-81
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. B. Veerabhadra Rao
HELD: While granting bail conditions which curtail the persona/liberty of an accused who has been granted the bail should indisputably be in accordance with the procedure established by law. The conditions that can be imposed should not be such as to render the very order of bail nugatory nor can conditions be impose in derogation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to an accused person under the Constitution.
The prosecuting agency has no right to request the Court to compel the accused to enable a discovery. The direction of the Magistrate that the accused should aid the Police by accompanying them to certain places is in clear derogation of the fundamental right of the accused of not being a witness against himself. The compliance with the direction of the Magistrate by the accused would tantamount to the accused being a witness against himself and so such direction is unconstitutional and invalid.
It would not be permissible for the Court while granting bail to direct an accused person that he should aid the investigating Officers by accompanying them to any particular place. A condition may be imposed that the accused should make himself available for interrogation by the Police as when and required. The Court however, cannot give a direction that the accused should truly answer all the questions that may be put him by the Police even if the answers should incriminates him. It would not also be open to the Court to direct an accused person to show the place or places wherefrom the Police can recover the properties concerned in a case. It would not also be open to the Court to direct an accused to make a confession before the Magistrate as from the remand report it is disclosed that the accused person had already confessed before the Police. Such directions would be beyond the discretionary power provided under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. , for quashing the conditions imposed in a bail order passed by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 142 of 1980 of Boinpali Police Station, which is within the jurisdictional limites of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate. He was arrested by the Boinpalli Police and was produced before the X Metropolitan Magistrate on 27-10-1980, who was then in-charge of the XI Metropolitan Magistrates Court for being remanded to judicial custody. It was stated by the Police in the remand report that the petitioner admitted having committed the offence under section 379, Indian Penal Code, in Crime No. 122 of 1980 of the Boinpalli Police Station and that on interrogation he confessed to his having committed a number of pick pocketing offences. It was further alleged that the petitioner stated that he disposed of the properties concerned in those pick pocketting offences at Warangal, Vijaywada and Guntur and even promised to take the police to those places for recovering those properties. The petitioner filed an application for bail, when he was produced before the Magistrate along with the remand report. The Magistrate thereupon passed the following order :-"accused Liaq Ali is produced by D. D. I. Team IV at 4. 00 p. m. Perused the remand report. Properties at Warangal, Vijayawada and Guntur are alleged to be recovered. The accused moved for bail and bail is granted. If he furnishes the sureties, he will be released and he should aid the investigation to accompany the D. D. I. or his subordinates to the above places. If no sureties are furnished, police remand is ordered till 7-11-1980. If released on bail, he shall appear before the D. D. I. at 3 p. m. , on 28-10-1980 and on other dates as investigation warrants. "
( 2 ) IT is against the conditions in the above referred order that the petitioner has come up to this Court with this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
( 3 ) SRI. B. Veerabhandra Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never admitted having committed the alleged offence in Crime No. 122 of 1980 and that the allegation that the petitioner confessed to his having committed several offences and promised to show the persons to whom he disposed of those properties at Warangal, Vijaywada and Guntur, is wholly false and invented for the purpose of harassing the accused. It is further contended by the petitioners learned counsel that the conditions imposed by the Magistrate are illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner is a notorious criminal, that he confessed to his having committed several offences and to have disposed of the properties at Warangal, Vijayawada and Guntur and that, therefore, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to assist the Investigating Officer by properties were disposed.
( 4 ) THE petitioner is the instant case was produced before the Magistrate having been arrested by the police in connection with Crime No. 142 of 1980 of Boinapally Police Station and that case is with reference to an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal code. Section 437 (1) Cr. P. C. provides as follows : (1) When any person accused of or suspected of the commission of any nonbailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charges of a police Station or appears or is brought before a Court, other than the High court or Court of Session he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; Provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail; Provided further that the mere fact that an accused person may be required fo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
