Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 203
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Konidhana Ananda Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3452 of 2017
Decided On : 22-06-2017
For the Petitioner:Akkapeddi Srinivas, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor for State (A.P).
Important Point—Station bail granted by Police cannot be equated with anticipatory bail granted by Court.
Headnote:Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA)Act, 1989—Sections 3(1)(x) and 18—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 41, 41-A and 438—Anticipatory bail—Legal bar—Where a reasonable complaint has been made or a credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exist against an accused that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years with or without fine, investigating officer may, without warrant of Court arrest such an accused, provided police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary for reasons enumerated in Sec.41 Cr.P.C.—I.O granted station bail by securing bail bonds of sureties on behalf of accused—This procedural order under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C cannot be equated with an order passed by a Court under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.—There is no procedural violation—Committal Court directed to submit bail bonds produced before I.O by accused and sureties to Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in which case they shall be deemed to be due compliance under Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C by Sessions Court.
Result—Criminal Petition disposed of with directions.
1. Petitioner/accused filed the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in P.R.C.No.30 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler (arising out of Cr.No.188 of 2014 of Piler PS) in which the petitioner allegedly committed offence under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA)Act, 1989.
2. The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the Piler PS stating that his marriage was held on 19.06.2014 at TTD Kalyana Mandapam, Piler for which the petitioner, who is a purohit in Ramalayam, Piler arranged photography, cook and utensils for a sum of Rs.70,000/-; he paid Rs.40,000/- at the time of marriage and requested some time to pay the balance amount; thereafter, due to paucity of money, he could not pay the balance amount. While so, on 30.09.2014 at 7 PM, petitioner came to his house and took him to the welding shop opposite to the telephone office and demanded the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- and when he requested for some more time to repay the amount, petitioner grew wild and abused him in filthy language touching the name of his caste and also beat him with hands on his cheek and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the complaint.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.188 of 2014 and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Madanapalle granted station bail to the petitioner on 28.10.2014 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16.11.2015 while committing the case to the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati for trial observed that since the petitioner was on station bail, he was ordered to be continued on bail till conclusion of trial. The learned Special Sessions Judge by letter Dis.No.19 dated 02.01.2016 returned the entire case record for non-compliance of Section 209(a) Cr.P.C and observed that bail order of the petitioner was not on record. Thereupon, the committal Court called for the explanation of the investigating officer regarding the bail order. It appears, the SDPO Madanapalle, in his letter dated 13.04.2017 submitted that his predecessor SDPO Madanapalle, conducted the investigation and he served notice to accused under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. since the offences of the case were punishable below 7 years of imprisonment and he did not consider necessary to arrest the accused as the accused had not failed to comply with the terms of the notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and he cannot submit more than that and prayed the Court to pass orders.
4. After receiving the aforesaid explanation, the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Piler passed an order dated 18.05.2017 which raised an apprehension in the mind of petitioner to seek for anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge while observing that Sec.41-A Cr.P.C does not apply to the facts of the present case as the offence was a special Act offence and grave in nature as per Sec.2(d) and 18 of SC, ST (POA) Act and directed the SDPO Madanapalle to comply with the provisions of Sec.209(a) Cr.P.C and to file neat copy of charge sheet.
5. What can be inferred from the above order is that learned Magistrate felt that since no anticipatory bail can be granted in respect of an offence under SC, ST (POA) Act in view of the bar under Sec.18, the investigating officer ought not to have granted station bail to accused while dealing with him under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and further held that Sec.41-A had no application since the offence is a special Act offence.
It must be said, the above observation is legally incorrect. No doubt, Sec.18 of SC, ST (POA) Act, creates a bar for invoking Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. i.e, entertaining a pre-arrest bail application by the Court. However, Sec.18 cannot militate and operate as an interdict against the power of a police officer under Sec.41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. A conjunctive reading of Sec.41 & 41-
