Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1316 (AP)

PEDAPATI GOPAL RAO v. State Of A. P.

2002-11-12

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2002
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application to cancel the bail granted to respondents 2 and 3 by the learned Sessions Judge, West godavari at Eluru in Crl. M. P. No. 1051 of 2002 in Cr. No. 40 of 2002 of Narasapur rural Police Station. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that respondents 2 and 3 caused the murder of the father of petitioners 3 to 6 on 19-4-2002. By an order dated 4-6-2002, the learned sessions Judge granted bail to respondents 2 and 3 on their executing a bond for rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties each in a like sum each to the satisfaction of the judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasapur. ( 3 ) ALLEGING that after respondents 2 and 3 were granted bail they are freely moving in Gondi Village, where the incident took place, and have been terriorising the petitioners, who signed the mediators report and the inquest report in Cr. No. 40 of 2002 and also are threatening the petitioners not to give evidence against them by displaying deadly weapons, petitioners filed this petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondents 2 and 3. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since respondents 2 and 3 are indulging in several acts of violence, threats and intimidation, several reports are given against respondents 2 and 3 the latest one being FIR No. 124 of 2002 of Palakollu Police Station, and contended that the remand report prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakollu town Police Station clearly shows that after respondents 2 and 3 were released on bail they are waiting for an opportunity to give life threat to the complainant in that case, i. e. , 5th petitioner herein, and his family members, which clearly speaks volumes about the high-handedness of respondents 2 and 3, and so the bail granted to them may be cancelled. He placed strong reliance on puran v. Rambilas ( AIR 2001 SC 2023 ), where the Supreme Court laid down the principles for cancellation of bail, and contended that this is a fit case to cancel the bail granted to respondents 2 and 3. He placed strong reliance on puran v. Rambilas ( AIR 2001 SC 2023 ), where the Supreme Court laid down the principles for cancellation of bail, and contended that this is a fit case to cancel the bail granted to respondents 2 and 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 is that after the respondents 2 and 3 were sent to judicial remand, the petitioners and their supporters have ransacked the house of respondents 2 and 3 and have taken away the valuable articles therein and so the wife of the second respondent gave a police report, and since the police referred the case as false a private complaint is filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, narasapur, which is taken on file as CC no. 103 of 2002 which prima facie shows that there was an incident in the house of respondents 2 and 3 after they were taken into custody by police, and in fact in cr. No. 124 of 2002 of Palakollu Police station, relied on by the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 were granted bail on certain conditions, and so it is clear that there are no grounds to cancel the bail granted to respondents 2 and 3. It is his contention that the petitioners are trying to somehow to see that the respondents 2 and 3 are kept in prison so that they can knock away the properties of respondents 2 and 3. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor. According to him he received a report from the police that no incidents have taken place in the Gondi Village after respondents 2 and 3 were enlarged on bail. ( 5 ) IN view of the statement of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no incidents have taken place at Gondi Village after respondents 2 and 3 were enlarged on bail, the contention of the petitioners that they are being put to threat after respondents 2 and 3 were enlarged on bail, may not be correct. It is the case of respondents 2 and 3 that after they were taken into custody, their house was ransacked and their articles were taken away. It should be mentioned that the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are closely related to each other and the dispute between them appears to be with regard to property. It is the case of respondents 2 and 3 that after they were taken into custody, their house was ransacked and their articles were taken away. It should be mentioned that the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are closely related to each other and the dispute between them appears to be with regard to property. The fact remains that each party is filing cases against the other and there is animosity between both the parties. It is well known that the bail granted should not ordinarily be cancelled unless there are extreme circumstances warranting such cancellation. In the circumstances of the case the statement made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the strength of the police report, that no incident took place in Gondi Village (where parties reside) has great relevance. Therefore, it is clear that each party is trying to accuse the other of some offence or the other because of the animosity between them. In these circumstances, instead of cancelling the bail granted to respondents 2 and 3, their entry into Gondi Village and the surrounding area can be restricted. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, I direct the respondents 2 and 3 to stay at Bhimavaram Town and report their presence before the Station house Officer, Bhimavaram Town (I Town) police Station on every day between 7. 00 a. m. , and 8. 00 a. m. , and between 6. 00 p. m. , and 7. 00 p. m. , and sign in a register to be opened for the said purpose for a period of three months. If respondents 2 and 3 have to attend the Court at Narasapur, they should obtain written permission from the Station house Officer, Bhimavaram Town (I Town) police Station and then only leave the local limits of Bhimavaram Town, only to attend the Court of Narasapur or Palakollu. They should not enter into Gondi Village. Since it is stated that the learned Magistrate directed respondents 2 and 3 to appear before the station House Officer, Palakollu Police station, that condition stands relaxed, and instead of reporting their presence at palakollu Police Station, they shall continue to report their presence at Bhimavaram Town (I Town) Police Station. ( 7 ) THE petition is ordered accordingly.