Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 7 (AP)

FRANCH PRATAP RAO ALMEIDA v. State Of A. P.

2000-01-17

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor, ( 2 ) THIS criminal petition seeks quashing of the order of the learned i Additional Sessions Judge (FAC of the ii Additional Sessions Judge), Eluru dated 16-12-1999 passed in Crl. MP No. 2493 of 1999 in Crime No. 247 of 1999 of Eluru ii Town Police Station under which the petitioner s bail was cancelled. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is accused of offence under Sections 489-B and C of the indian Penal Code. On his application in crl. MP No. 2159 of 1999, he was directed to be released on bail on his executing the personal bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the II Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Eluru. On behalf of the prosecution, Crl. MP No. 2493 of 1999 was moved for cancellation of bail. ( 4 ) IT is stated that the learned Counsel, who appeared, for the accused in the bail petition, requested that notice may be sent to the petitioner-accused. No such notice, however, was sent and after hearing the Public Prosecutor the learned additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail by allowing the petition for cancellation of bail. ( 5 ) A reading of the order would disclose that the only ground on which the bail was cancelled was the failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with a further direction in the bail order directing him to execute a self bond to the satisfaction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, eluru undertaking to appear in his office whenever required. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this direction for execution of a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Additional superintendent of Police was struck of in the original order and even the certified copy which the petitioner obtained shows that this portion was struck of. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner did not execute any bond to the satisfaction of the Additional superintendent of Police thinking that this particular requirement is not mandated by the order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge. A certified copy of the said order filed along with this petition shows that this portion of the order was struck of. A certified copy of the said order filed along with this petition shows that this portion of the order was struck of. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that the original bail order did require the petitioner to execute such a bond. ( 8 ) BUT, considering the circumstance, there appears to be some scope for the petitioner-accused to entertain some doubt whether such a requirement was contemplated under the original bail order. At any rate, it is difficult to appreciate how such a requirement was incorporated in the order if at all. The petitioner was in jail and he has been granted regular bail. He has executed his personal bond to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Two sureties also executed the surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class magistrate. It was open to the learned sessions Judge to impose such conditions as were considered desirable in respect of attendance of the petitioner before any police authorities for the purpose of investigation. But there was no need for executing a bond before a police officer when the petitioner and his sureties had executed the bonds to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class magistrate. ( 9 ) AT any rate, it may be pointed out that cancellation of bail is a serious matter. An application for cancellation of bail cannot be treated in the same way as an application for grant of bail. Far more serious considerations are required to be shown to accede to any request for cancellation of bail. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING these circumstances, the grounds for cancellation of bail in this case do not appear justified. The order of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (FAC II Additional Sessions Judge) passed in Crl. MP No. 2493 of 1999 cancelling the bail of the petitioner is, therefore, quashed. However, the bail order granted to the petitjpner in Crl. MP No. 2159 of 1999 shall be read that the petitioner shall appear before the Additional Superintendent of police, Eluru on 28-1-2000 and on such subsequent dates as required by the said additional Superintendent of Police for the purpose of investigation, if the same is still pending. ( 11 ) WITH the above directions, this petition is allowed.