Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Pathapathi Naidu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.5644 of 2024
Decided on : 27-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SURAGANI KRISHNA VAMSI
For the Respondent: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail conditions must be reasonable and not impede the accused's right to a fair trial while ensuring their presence in court.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 437, 439, 480, 483 - The court emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable and not onerous, ensuring the accused's presence while balancing the rights of the accused with the need for trial progress.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, A.2 in a criminal case, sought bail after being arrested for failing to appear in court multiple times. The case involved allegations of fraud related to a loan secured by false property claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had a history of delaying the trial process and emphasized the need for reasonable bail conditions to ensure his presence at future hearings.
Issues: The key issue was determining the appropriate parameters for granting bail to an accused who had previously been granted bail but failed to appear in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bail conditions must be reasonable and related to the facts of the case, ensuring they do not nullify the bail order while addressing the need for trial progress.
Result: The petition for bail was allowed with specific conditions imposed.
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking regular bail in C.C.No.27 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420 and 468 read with 471 I.P.C.
2. Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Krishna Vamsi Suragani, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dilip Jaya Ram, the learned Central Government Counsel submitted their respective arguments.
3. Perused the record.
4. When an accused applied for regular bail and was granted the same and availed it and when the same thing happened twice, what should be the determining parameter when he applies for bail on the third occasion in the same crime is the question that has arisen in this case.
5. This petitioner is A.2 in C.C.No.27 of 2017 pending before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. A.1 therein is officer of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and A.3 therein as well as the present petitioner are private persons. The allegations are that this petitioner obtained loan by showing immovable property as security and that loan was granted by A.1 and investigation revealed that the property which was tendered as security never stood in the revenue records in the name of this petitioner. It was in those circumstances the charge sheet was laid.
6. Petitioner applied and was granted bail initially. After cognizance being taken when summons were sought to be served he did not respond and that necessitated a non-bailable warrant and by its execution he was taken to judicial custody on 11.12.2018 and then he applied for bail and that was granted and he availed it. Thereafter the case stood adjourned from one day to the other without any progress. On 02.05.2024 the trial judge gave a direction that all the three accused should attend Court hearing so that the case could proceed further. Despite such direction this petitioner did not appear before the Court. It was in such circumstances, to secure his presence, for the progress of the case once again non-bailable warrant was issued and with great difficulty it was executed and he was arrested and was brought before the trial Court. It was thereafter he sought bail on two occasions and the learned trial Court dismissed the same by recording reasons. It is in those circumstances the petitioner had moved this Court seeking bail.
7. Cause title in the charge sheet would show that this accused is resident of Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. The present bail petition in its cause title would show the said address as well as the current address of the petitioner, which is at Tadepalli of Guntur District. One of the reasons that prompted the learned trial Court to refuse granting bail was that this petitioner neither informed the Court nor informed the C.B.I. about his change of address. It was in such circumstances it became very difficult for the State and the Court to secure his presence. An interesting fact to be noted is that althrough this petitioner has been represented by his counsel before the trial Court and yet there was no submission from the counsel appearing for him about change of address. That failure caused the strain in the system.
8. The earnest submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are about petitioner’s presence before the trial Court on various occasions so as to say that he is not against the process of law. The other submission revolves around various difficulties in the family and the health of children and others and the death of mother of the petitioner. It is on such submissions the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner would scrupulously participate in the trial process and prays for release of him on bail. During hearing it emerged that when the case involves multiple accused and all
