Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. RAJANI, J.
K.R. Giri Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. P No. 305 of 2019
Decided On : 12-02-2019
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 and 167 – Seeking for direction to produce before competent criminal Courts – Quashing of Bail Petition – Custody of Petitioner by filing Prisoner Transit warrant – Held, there need not be any further demur to hold that petitioner, who is in custody in different crimes, can be deemed to be in custody pertaining to other crimes, in which he figured as accused – Therefore, remedy of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC cannot be denied, on ground that his arrest was not shown in crime in which he is shown as accused – There can be no reason for police not to show his arrest in the current crime except for reason alleged by petitioner – Right of petitioner to seek statutory bail under Section 167 Cr.PC is concerned, Petitioner does not carry vehemence in his argument, having been persuaded by right understanding of language of Section 167 Cr.PC, which specifies that presence of accused is necessary for purpose of extending detention – Impugned endorsements are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside – Criminal petitions allowed (Para 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitions are moved by petitioner, faced by difficulty and hardship, caused by alleged tactical move of police, in not seeking for custody of petitioners by filing Prisoner Transit Warrants in different crimes.
Findings of the case:
there need not be any further demur to hold that petitioner, who is in custody in different crimes, can be deemed to be in custody pertaining to other crimes, in which he figured as accused – Therefore, remedy of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC cannot be denied, on ground that his arrest was not shown in crime in which he is shown as accused – There can be no reason for police not to show his arrest in the current crime except for reason alleged by petitioner – Right of petitioner to seek statutory bail under Section 167 Cr.PC is concerned, Petitioner does not carry vehemence in his argument, having been persuaded by right understanding of language of Section 167 Cr.PC, which specifies that presence of accused is necessary for purpose of extending detention – Impugned endorsements are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside
Result: Criminal petitions allowed
T. Rajani, J.
1. The parties and the subject-matter of these petitions being same, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These petitions are moved by the petitioner, faced by the difficulty and hardship, caused by the alleged tactical move of the police, in not seeking for the custody of the petitioners by filing the Prisoner Transit Warrants (for short, “P.T. Warrant”) in different crimes.
3. The petitioner was shown to have been arrested in different crimes on the file of Railway Koduru Police Station on 7.5.2018 and he was sent for remand on 9.7.2018. The petitioner was granted bail and on 7.5.2018 his confessional statements were recorded in all the crimes. Through the said confessional statements, it came to light that he was involved in 43 cases. In eight cases bail was granted, while in two cases his bail applications are pending. Inspite of the confessional statements being recorded on 7.5.2018, the petitioner was not produced before the concerned Magistrate by filing P.T. Warrants. The wife of the petitioner has given detailed representations on 26.11.2018, to the District Judge, Kadapa and requested for a direction to be given to the concerned police to file P.T. Warrants. As there was no response, the wife of the petitioner has sent representations to all the concerned police stations through RPAD and also sent a representation to the District Judge, Kadapa. She also gave a representation to the District Legal Services Authority with all the details of the crimes, in which me petitioner was shown as accused and requested to file P.T. Warrants. The same was acknowledged by the Legal Services Authority. The petitioner moved bail application before the District Judge, Kadapa under Section 439 Cr.PC, but it was returned with an endorsement that P.T. Warrants and remand reports were not filed. The police officials are not producing the petitioner before the concerned Magistrates in respect of the respective crimes, though they have knowledge of the fact that the petitioner is arrayed as accused. Because of the said action of the police officials, the petitioner is unable to file bail applications in the respective crimes. The police officials are filing P.T. Warrants in respect of crimes, one after another, only after getting bail in one case, which shows that the officials have an intention to keep the petitioner in custody as long as possible, without affording an opportunity of approaching the Courts, to obtain bail.
4. It is on this premise that the petitioner comes before this Court, seeking for a direction to the respondents to produce the petitioner in the respective crimes, before the competent criminal Courts and to quash the respective endorsements, returning the bail applications of the petitioner and direct the District Sessions Judge, Kadapa to entertain the application for bail, treating the petitioner as being in deemed custody in the respective crimes.
5. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
6. This Court decided a batch of petitions filed by the accused in Crime No. 117 of 2015 and several other crimes, in which similar issue was involved. One of the prayers of the petitioners therein is to deem the custody of the petitioners therein in one crime, as custody in other crimes, in which neither P.T. Warrant nor remand report is filed, for the purpose of extending the benefit of Section 439 as well as Section 167 Cr.PC. The Court, however, declined to accept the contentions raised with regard to deeming the custody of the petitioners therein, so far as Section 167 Cr.PC is concerned, but held that the petitioners can be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 439 Cr.PC.
7. The Supreme Court, in Sundeep Kumar Bajha v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623, has considered the entire case law on the above aspect. The meaning of the word, 'custody' was arrived at, with reference to the meaning assigned to the word
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
