ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
State of A.P. rep. by it’s the Public Prosecutor —Petitioner
versus
Kollam Gangi Reddy —Respondent
Criminal Petition No.5795 of 2014
Decided on 14.7.2014

IMPORTANT POINT:
Abscondence is also one of the main grounds for cancellation of bail besides interference with witnesses non-cooperating with investigation and out of availability to face trial and committing of any similar crime etc., being the intervening circumstances after grant of bail.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439(2) —Petition seeking cancellation of bail—Bail was granted by High Court in favour of respondent accused in a case registered u/s 379, 120B IPC Sections 20(1)(3), 10, 29(1)(2)(b) of Indian Forest Act r/w red Sandal Wood Possession and transit Rules and under Wild Life Protection Act—Cancellation of bail on plea that petitioner after obtaining bail absconded from India and left for Bahrain and two more cases of similar nature were registered against him—Abscondance was one of main grounds for cancellation of bail —Nothing on record to show if respondent applied as per Section 6(2)(7) of Passport Act for any permission to leave the country—He abused the concession of bail and jumped bail by leaving the country irrespective of there was no condition not to leave country—Bail was liable to be recalled and cancelled.

       Held: From the above propositions, abscondence is also one of the main grounds for cancellation of bail besides interference with witnesses non-cooperating with investigation and out of availability to face trial and committing of any similar crime etc., being the intervening circumstances after grant of bail.

       It is apart from the concession of bail allowed in favour of the respondent/A33 herein, leave about another crime pending against him, the contention of the prosecution is he jumped the bail by leaving the country without even permission of the Court. In fact in this regard as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Indian Passports Act, the accused of a criminal case for the crime pending can be refused the passport for leaving the country during its pendency before the Criminal Court in India. Even the Central Government to facilitate such accused issued notification by Ministry of External Affairs dated 25.8.1993 in GSR 570E as per the powers under Section 22 of the Passport Act and in super-session of earlier notification dated 14.4.1976 in the public interest to exempt citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed pending before a Criminal Court in India, who produce orders from the Court concern permitting them to depart from India from the operation of the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Indian Passports Act subject to the conditions. It is important to note that the record of the learned. Magistrate called for by this Court for purpose of perusal reflected the two bail orders dismissed and the charge sheet filed and as per the order of this Court (another bench) which granted bail, solvency when submitted, the bonds accepted and enlarged on bail and there is nothing on record showing the respondent/A33 applied as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act for any permission to leave the country as required by the notification supra that is mandatory. In the absence of which it is a clear indication of his guilty mind in getting the passport by suppressing the factum of the criminal case or otherwise get over the legal bar by some means for which there is nothing more to discuss for no more material for he abused the concession of bail and jumped the bail by leaving the country irrespective of there is no condition not to leave the country for the bar to leave the country which he sprouted. As per the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, out of the three crimes including this pending against the above accused supra, the Crime No.254/2013 is under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act for giving false information to the passport authority by playing fraud in obtaining passport to flee away from the country and he has given different date of births one for the pan card and other for the passport to facilitate his fleeing away and it further discloses that so far Rs.14 crores of red sandal was smuggled by this A33 and 113 lorries were used for the purpose of illegal transport of red sandal as per the investigation.

       Taking consideration of all these facts and in particular from what is discussed supra of the accused intentionally abused the concession of bail is not entitled to continue on the said concession thereby larger interests of the society requires cancellation of bail though it tantamounts taking away of the personal liberty conferred. (Paras 15, 17 & 18)

       Result: Petition allowed.