Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
M. Sammaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of AP – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5438 of 2019
Decided On : 15-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate
THE COURT CAN DIRECT THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TO COMMIT THE PRC IMMEDIATELY, UNLESS ANY OTHER LEGAL OBSTACLE PREVENTS HIM.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 437, 439 - BAIL - REGULAR BAIL - PETITIONER/A.9 SEEKS REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO. 75 OF 2017 - CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 AND SECTION 120-B IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(B) OF THE ARMS ACT, 1959 - COURT DIRECTED THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALLAGADDA TO COMMIT P.R.C. NO. 29 OF 2019 (CRIME NO. 75 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF SIRVEL POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT) AND THE ACCUSED THEREIN TO SESSIONS COURT, KURNOOL, EXPEDITIOUSLY I.E., WITHIN TWO WEEKS FROM 21.12.2020.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONER/A.9 SEEKS REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO. 75 OF 2017 - CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 AND SECTION 120-B IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(B) OF THE ARMS ACT, 1959 - EARLIER, THE PETITIONER/A9 FILED CRL. P. NO. 4949 OF 2019 SEEKING BAIL, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT WITH LIBERTY TO RENEW HIS BAIL APPLICATION AFTER SESSIONS CASE IS NUMBERED - THE COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE TAKEN UP BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE FILING THE CHARGE SHEET, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER DELETED THE NAMES OF ACCUSED NOS. 3 AND 4 AND FILED CHARGE SHEET ONLY AGAINST SEVEN ACCUSED - THEREUPON, THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE ISSUED NOTICE TO THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT WHO FILED A PROTEST PETITION AGAINST DELETION OF THE NAMES OF ACCUSED NOS. 3 AND 4 FROM THE CHARGE SHEET - AFTER ENQUIRY, THE PROTEST PETITION WAS ALLOWED AND COGNIZANCE OF AFORESAID OFFENCES AGAINST A.3 AND A.4 WAS TAKEN AND THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR COMMITTAL - A.3 AND A.4 FILED CRL. R.C. NO. 1132 OF 2019 BEFORE THE COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING - SINCE A.3 AND A.4 ARE NOT REGULARLY APPEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTAL COURT ON THE PRETEXT OF PENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE, THE COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE TAKEN UP.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT DIRECTED THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALLAGADDA TO COMMIT P.R.C. NO. 29 OF 2019 (CRIME NO. 75 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF SIRVEL POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT) AND THE ACCUSED THEREIN TO SESSIONS COURT, KURNOOL, EXPEDITIOUSLY I.E., WITHIN TWO WEEKS FROM 21.12.2020 - AFTER NUMBERING OF SESSIONS CASE, THE PETITIONER/A.9 IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE BAIL APPLICATION BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, KURNOOL, SEEKING BAIL WHICH SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF ON MERITS BY THE CONCERNED SESSIONS COURT, EXPEDITIOUSLY.
Issues: WHETHER THE PETITIONER/A.9 IS ENTITLED TO REGULAR BAIL IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT SINCE THERE IS NO INTERDICT TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS, AND AS THE PETITIONER/A.9 CAN FILE A FRESH BAIL APPLICATION ONLY AFTER PRC IS COMMITTED AND SESSIONS CASE IS NUMBERED, THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO COMMIT THE PRC IMMEDIATELY, UNLESS ANY OTHER LEGAL OBSTACLE PREVENTS HIM.
Final Decision: THE COURT DIRECTED THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALLAGADDA TO COMMIT P.R.C. NO. 29 OF 2019 (CRIME NO. 75 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF SIRVEL POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT) AND THE ACCUSED THEREIN TO SESSIONS COURT, KURNOOL, EXPEDITIOUSLY I.E., WITHIN TWO WEEKS FROM 21.12.2020 - AFTER NUMBERING OF SESSIONS CASE, THE PETITIONER/A.9 IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE BAIL APPLICATION BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, KURNOOL, SEEKING BAIL WHICH SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF ON MERITS BY THE CONCERNED SESSIONS COURT, EXPEDITIOUSLY.
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. In this petition filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/A.9 seeks regular bail in Crime No. 75 of 2017 on the file of Sirvel Police Station, Kurnool District, wherein charge sheet was filed by the police for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 and Section 120-B IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. It appears, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda accepted the charge sheet and registered the case as P.R.C. No. 29 of 2019 and it is informed that the matter is at the stage of committal.
3. It should be noted that earlier, the petitioner/A9 filed Crl. P. No. 4949 of 2019 seeking bail. However, at that time, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application inter alia contending that the charge sheet was filed and the matter was at the stage of committal to the Sessions Court, and if at that stage bail was granted to the petitioner and if he did not attend the Court, the committal proceedings may be stalled and the case may be delayed. Having regard, this Court, while dismissing the said criminal petition, vide orders dated 27.08.2019 granted liberty to the petitioner to renew his bail application after sessions case is numbered.
That is how, the instant bail application is filed.
4. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/A9, and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
5. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the committal proceedings could not be taken up by the learned Magistrate for the reason that while filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer deleted the names of accused Nos. 3 and 4 and filed charge sheet only against seven accused. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the de facto complainant who filed a protest petition against deletion of the names of accused Nos. 3 and 4 from the charge sheet. After enquiry, the protest petition was allowed and cognizance of aforesaid offences against A.3 and A.4 was taken and the case was posted for committal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, A.3 and A.4 filed Crl. R.C. No. 1132 of 2019 before this Court and the same is pending. Since A.3 and A.4 are not regularly appearing before the committal Court on the pretext of pendency of the criminal revision case, the committal proceedings could not be taken up. In these circumstances, the petitioner/A9, who has been languishing in jail since 01.05.2019, could not file bail application pursuant to the directions of this Court in Crl. P. No. 4949 of 2019, because committal proceedings were not completed and sessions case was not numbered. He thus prayed that his bail application may be considered.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor filed counter and opposed the bail application.
7. This Court directed the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda to send status report in respect of Crime No. 75 of 2017 and on 02.12.2020 the learned Magistrate submitted a detailed report about the stage of the crime. Learned Magistrate informed that on 23.11.2020, learned counsel for A.3 and A.4 filed a memo before him stating that A.3 and A.4 preferred Crl. R.C. No. 1132 of 2019 before this Court and the same was posted to 20.11.2020 and sought ten days' time for furnishing sureties on behalf of A.3 and A.4 for committal of the case, and considering his request, time was granted and remand period of the petitioner/A9 was extended till 07.12.2020 and the case was posted to 07.12.2020 for appearance of A.1 to A.4 and A.6 to A.8 for furnishing sureties in order to commit the case.
This Court again sought for information as to the proceedings dated 07.12.2020. Learned Magistrate submitted that on 07.12.2020, A.1 to A.3 and A.6 to A.8 were present and A.4 was absent and a petition filed to condone the absence of A.4 was allowed. Whereas A.5 and A.9 were produced through V.C. from Central Prison, Kadapa, an
