Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Samanthapudi Vn Srinivasa Varma – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5672 of 2022
Decided On : 04-08-2022
Section 438 - Bail - The court directed the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the guidelines prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking bail in the event of his arrest in a case under Sections 403 and 408 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the submissions of both counsels and directed the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the guidelines prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 case.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in the event of his arrest in a case under Sections 403 and 408 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the penal provisions were punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years, and therefore, the court directed the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the guidelines prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the guidelines prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 case.
ORDER
Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.) is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.
2. The petitioner is accused in Crime No.212 of 2021 of Parawada Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.
3. A case under Sections 403 and 408 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") was registered against the petitioner in the above crime.
4. Heard Sri P.Nanilu Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that initially, the name of the petitioner is not found in the F.I.R and subsequently, basing on the confession statement of A-4 and A-5, the petitioner's name was mentioned and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioner and basing on the same, the prosecution is trying to arrest the petitioner. He further contends that the penal provisions Sections 403 and 408 IPC does not attract to the facts of the present case, and they are punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years, as such, the petitioner is entitled for Section 41-A Cr.P.C., procedure and limited the relief to that extent.
6. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that the alleged charges are punishable for less than seven years and more so, the petitioner is involved in another crime for the very same offence and prayed for dismissal of pre-arrest bail.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the counsel and because the penal provisions are punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years, this court is inclined to give a direction to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C., procedure.
Therefore, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the guidelines prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 case against the petitioners in the above crime.
As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
AI
Anticipatory bail – Where penal provisions are punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years, court can to give direction to follow Section 41-A, Cr.P.C., procedure.
Maximum punishment prescribed for the offences being below seven years warrants police to follow procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C
The court emphasized the importance of following the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in cases involving offences punishable under IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the police to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court in ....
Grant of anticipatory bail based on lack of specific overt acts or allegations against the petitioners.
The absence of specific overt acts against the petitioner in the nature of allegations led to the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and guidelines in cases involving allegations of harassment for dowry and directed the police to do so.
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
