Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Ponguru Narayana & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - SECTION 438 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - BAR OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - ACT DONE IN PURSUANCE OF THE ACT - SECTION 146 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (APCRDA) ACT, 2014 - COURT'S DISCRETION IN GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL - GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 438(1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IN LIGHT OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - COURT'S DUTY TO BALANCE SOCIETAL INTEREST AND PERSONAL LIBERTY - CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE - APPLICATION OF SECTION 146 OF THE APCRDA ACT, 2014 TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE - APPLICABILITY OF THE BAR TO PROSECUTION - REQUIREMENT OF MENS REA OR GUILTY INTENTION - POLITICAL RIVALRY AS A FACTOR - GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused nos. 2 to 5, apprehended their arrest in connection with Crime No. 16 of 2022 registered for offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 34, 35, 36, 37, 166, 167, and 217 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations against the petitioners were that they committed illegal and corrupt activities in designing the Master Plan of Andhra Pradesh Capital and Capital City, alignment of Inner Ring Road, and its connected artery roads, causing wrongful gain to certain chosen persons and entities connected to the decision-making authorities, thereby deriving maximum pecuniary benefits and causing corresponding wrongful loss to the general public and the public exchequer, amounting to cheating.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were not specific and that there was no evidence to conclude that they committed any offences. The court also found that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case due to political vendetta. Further, the court held that Section 146 of the APCRDA Act, 2014, barred the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged acts done in pursuance of the Act. The court also found that the alleged violation of the Central Vigilance Commission's circular in appointing a consultant did not constitute any offence without the requisite mens rea or guilty intention.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code? 2. Whether Section 146 of the APCRDA Act, 2014, barred the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged acts done in pursuance of the Act? 3. Whether the alleged violation of the Central Vigilance Commission's circular in appointing a consultant constituted any offence without the requisite mens rea or guilty intention?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the lack of specific allegations against the petitioners, the absence of evidence to conclude that they committed any offences, the political vendetta involved, and the bar under Section 146 of the APCRDA Act, 2014. 2. The court held that Section 146 of the APCRDA Act, 2014, barred the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged acts done in pursuance of the Act, as the section provided a specific bar to prosecute any officer, authority, or person for any act done or purported to have been done under the Act or in pursuance of the Act, the rules, or the standing orders made thereunder. 3. The court held that the alleged violation of the Central Vigilance Commission's circular in appointing a consultant did not constitute any offence without the requisite mens rea or guilty intention, as there was nothing to establish the role played by the petitioners and the entire exercise remained in papers only.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal petitions and directed the Station House Officer to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to certain conditions, including executing personal bonds and staying within India without leaving the country without prior permission of the court till the date of filing the charge-sheet.
JUDGMENT
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. - Before commencing arguments, learned Additional Advocate General raised oral objections and sought My recusal from hearing these criminal petitions, on the ground of change of roster of criminal petitions and they should be heard by appropriate Bench having roster; as such, this Court cannot hear the matters.
2. The interlocutory application(s) that were filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Crime Investigation Department were returned, and thereafter, fresh applications were not filed. Hence, except oral objections for recusal, no interlocutory application(s) are filed. However, this Court feels it appropriate to answer the objections of the learned Additional Advocate General.
3. The series of events of the criminal petitions are as follows:
1. Originally, these criminal petitions were listed before the Court on 19.05.2022. At request of the learned Public Prosecutor, for instructions and appearance of Special Public Prosecutor for C.I.D, they were posted to 26.05.2022.
2. On 26.05.2022, again the Special Public Prosecutor sought time for appearance of learned Advocate General. Learned counsel for the petitioners were heard and learned Special Public Prosecutor requested for time for appearance of learned Additional Advocate General, but argued the same. The Court directed the respondent -- police not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners till next date of hearing and posted the matters to 09.06.2022.
3. On 09.06.2022, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners were completed, but at request of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the matters were posted to 15.06.2022 under the caption 'Part-heard' for hearing the learned Additional Advocate General by extending the interim orders until further orders.
4. On 16.06.2022, at request of the learned Additional Advocate General, matters were listed on 17.06.2022.
5. On 17.06.2022, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional General appearing for the respondent -- State, reserved the matters for orders.
4. A long standing customary practice followed in the common High Court and still prevailing in this High Court is that, the administrative control of the High Court vests with the Hon'ble The Chief Justice alone and the Hon'ble Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster. It is his prerogative to constitute Benches of the Court and to allot cases to the Benches so constituted. The roster dealing with sitting arrangements of Hon'ble Judges is released by the order of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice and published by the Registrar (Judicial). At the end of the roster 'Nota Bene (N.B)' is issued, drawing attention to the information. The N.B reads as follows:
'All matters, on change of roster, shall stand released and shall be posted before the Bench/s as per the roster, except matters which are reserved for judgment or under the caption 'CAV or the matters which are part-heard'
5. Thus, N.B specifies that, all matters, on change of roster, shall stand released and shall be posted before the Bench/s as per the roster, except matters which are reserved for judgment or under the caption 'CAV or the matters which are part-heard.
6. These matters have a long and chequered history. After listing, they were not heard instantly. Prior to hearing, they have undergone several adjournments upon the request made on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General. Due to his non-availability and inconvenience, all the learned counsel for the petitioners insisted for hearing their arguments and they concluded their arguments on 09.06.2022. In the presence of learned counsel appearing for all the parties, these matters were directed to be listed under the caption part-heard. This Hon'ble Court reopened after the end of summer vacation and as per the roster, these part-heard matters were listed before this Court as per the cause list released by the Registry by order of The Hon'ble The Chi
Section 146 of the APCRDA Act, 2014, bars the prosecution of any officer, authority, or person for any act done or purported to have been done under the Act or in pursuance of the Act, the rules, or ....
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is warranted when there is a lack of prima facie evidence against the accused and a significant delay in the investigation suggests no immediate necessity ....
(1) Pre-arrest bail – There cannot be presumption of guilt to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before Court.(2) No arrest can be made routinely on a mere allegation of commissio....
Custody in different crimes arising from different transactions cannot be deemed as custody for the purpose of seeking regular bail.
The jurisdiction for anticipatory bail in caste atrocity cases is reserved for special courts under the Scheduled Castes Act, reaffirming the necessity for prima facie evidence for jurisdictional app....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly in serious cases, and requires compliance with court conditions; failure to do so can lead to rejection of bail applications.
Anticipatory bail petitions under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not maintainable unless prima facie evidence exists, as per Sections 18 and 18....
Anticipatory bail, once granted, remains effective until the trial concludes, and a court must adhere to higher court directives regarding bail conditions and custody.
Anticipatory bail can be denied if the applicant fails to comply with court orders and conditions, especially in serious cases involving multiple FIRs.
Anticipatory bail granted by a higher court remains in effect until the trial concludes, and lower courts must adhere to such orders to maintain judicial discipline.
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
