Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
Dr. Kasturi Srinivas - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.8752 Of 2024
Decided On : 23-09-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 41-A – Bail cancellation – The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to the accused for violating conditions imposed by the trial Court, specifically leaving jurisdiction without permission. The accused's actions demonstrate a disregard for the Court's orders, justifying cancellation. (Paras 6, 14, 17)
(B) Bail – Conditions – The accused violated bail conditions by attending a meeting after leaving jurisdiction without permission, undermining the Court's authority and the integrity of the bail system. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case: The petitioner alleges that the accused misappropriated funds and violated bail conditions by leaving jurisdiction without permission to attend a meeting.
Findings of Court: The Court finds that the accused's actions constitute a deliberate violation of bail conditions, warranting cancellation of bail.
Issues: The main issue is whether the accused's violation of bail conditions justifies cancellation of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that bail conditions must be respected, and violations can lead to cancellation, especially when they undermine the judicial process.
Result: The bail granted to the accused is cancelled.
ORDER :
(Juvvadi Sridevi, J.) :
Petitioner/de facto complainant has preferred this criminal petition seeking to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent/accused No.1, vide order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crime No.443 of 2021 of P.S. Rayadurgam.
2. Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Uma Devi Nama, counsel for petitioner/ de facto complainant and Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.Sunil Anand, counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.1 and perused the record.
3. Petitioner herein, who has worked as President of “Chitrapuri Sadhana Samithi”, has lodged a complaint with the Rayadurgam Police stating that the State Government has allotted an extent of Acs.67.16 Guntas of land in Sy.No.246/1 of Manikonda Jagir to ‘Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Limited’ at Rs.40/- per square yard, for allotment to the cine workers who are not having any land or houses. It is alleged in the complaint that due to hike in prices of land in the area, the 2nd respondent herein, being the Secretary of the Union, admitted 9153 members into the Society against the available plots of 4213, by creating fake ID cards and by forging the signatures of the Committee of IAS Officers appointed for allotment of plots. Thus, it is alleged that the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has allotted plots to the non-eligible persons and also got transferred amounts from the accounts of the Society to the personal accounts of the Members of the Society and thereby misappropriated crores of rupees.
4. Basing on the above complaint, Crime No.443 of 2021 was registered against the 2nd respondent herein and others for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC. The 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 before the trial Court, wherein, he has questioned the registration of crime against him and also sought for grant of bail. The main ground urged for grant of bail was that though the crime was registered in the year 2021, he was arrested only on 21.05.2024 i.e. after lapse of three years and that if any allegations are there against the Executive Committee Members of the Society, the remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, but the complainant has approached the Police and the Police, without issuing notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., have arrested the 2nd respondent/accused No.1.
5. The prosecution has opposed the said application contending that if accused No.1 is released on bail, he may tamper the evidence and that he may abscond, as the other accused in the crime were also absconding.
6. On considering the rival contentions of the parties, ultimately, the trial Court has allowed the above application by order, dated 24.06.2024 granting bail to the 2nd respondent/accused No.1, however, by imposing certain conditions. Condition No.(ii), which is alleged to have been violated, reads as under:
7. The grounds urged for cancellation of bail are that the 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has violated the above condition by moving away from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission by visiting Vijayawada on 26.06.2024, by conducting a press meet on 27.06.2024 threatening the members who have filed cases against the Managing Committee, stating that they will not get their houses registered in their favour, and further, he has also participated in the meeting held in connection with inauguration of the office of “Telugu Film and Digital Industry Employees’ Federation”, at Gandhinagar of Vijayawada on 28.06.2024.
8. The 2nd respondent/accused No.1 has opposed this application for cancellation of bail by filing co
Bail conditions must be strictly adhered to, and violations can lead to cancellation to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Bail can be canceled for deliberate violations of imposed conditions, as such actions compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
Violating Condition Imposed in Bail Order - Cancel Bail - Criminal activity violating condition/conditions imposed in the bail order, the same is a supervening circumstances to cancel the bail.
Bail should not be cancelled without clear evidence of violation of conditions or misuse of liberty, as established by the court's analysis.
Bail may be cancelled if the accused violates conditions by engaging in further criminal activity, with the court needing to assess the seriousness and context of such violations.
Cancellation of bail requires compelling evidence of misconduct or supervening circumstances affecting fairness of trial; mere subsequent offenses do not suffice.
Violation of bail conditions justifies cancellation of bail, emphasizing the court's authority to enforce compliance.
The main legal point established is that the discretion to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, considering the seriousness of the offence and the need for proper reasoning in bail orders.
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
