Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 274 (AP)

Syed Hameeduddin v. State Of A. P.

2005-03-23

V.V.S.RAO

body2005
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is Accused no. 19 in Crime No. 1 of 2003 of Police station, Special Investigation Team (SIT), hyderabad. He along with others is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 255, 258, 259, 420 and 120-B of Indian penal Code (IPC) and also under Sections 64 (c) and 69 (b) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Act, 2001 (APCOCA ). He filed present petition seeking bail under sections 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal procedure. 1973 (Crpc ). Initially, the case was registered by the State Police and later the same was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as per the orders of the Supreme Court and was registered as rc. No. 4 (E)/2004/cbi/eow-I/dli. The CBI after investigation filed a charge-sheet and the case was taken on file and registered as c. C. No. 4 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under apcoca-cum-I Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) AS per the charge-sheet filed by cbi on 1-10-2004 the case of the prosecution in brief is as follows. Accused No. l, Abdul karim Telgi is leader of organized crime syndicate. The criminal syndicate engaged in sale and circulation of fake stamps in state of Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad in the name and style of M/s. Sams Services, and M/s. Star Services since 2001. Accused no. 19 is active member of the criminal syndicate and by using licence issued to another person he circulated fake stamps illegally and that Accused No. 13 Khadersha mohammed Yousuf Singoti @ Sajju confessed to the effect that he handed over stock of fake stamps to Mohd. Abdul Waheed, accused No. 2 and Syed Hameeduddin, accused No. 19 as many as ten to twelve times at Metro Exports Office, of Accused no. l, at Bombay, and at Gulf Hotel, in bombay. Accused No. 2 Mohd. Abdul waheed Quadri in his confessional statement stated that the petitioner/accused No. 19 removed stock of stamps from the premises of M/s. Star Services on 8-11-2001 when the police raided premises of M/s. Sams services. l, at Bombay, and at Gulf Hotel, in bombay. Accused No. 2 Mohd. Abdul waheed Quadri in his confessional statement stated that the petitioner/accused No. 19 removed stock of stamps from the premises of M/s. Star Services on 8-11-2001 when the police raided premises of M/s. Sams services. As per the confessional statement of Badruddin, Accused No. 11, petitioner arranged office space of Model House, punjagutta to accommodate representatives of M/s. Star Services in the month of October 2001 and also made arrangements of begumpet in June 2002 with the active assistance of Patwegar Abdul Waheed (Accused No. 9) in the name of Aqueel Patel for accommodating representatives of M/s. Star Services on monthly rent of Rs. 7,500/- and also paid advance of Rs. 30,000/ -. As per the charge-sheet Accused No. 19 also took Flat No. G-4 in Asha Residency, bazarghat, Hyderabad from one Mohd. Shafeeq on monthly rent of Rs. 1,800/- where he stored fake stamps of various denominations which were recovered in crime No. 73 of 2002 of P. S. Dharavi Crime branch, Bombay on 29-7-2002 to the tune of Rs. 3. 67 crores. The charge-sheet also attributes different culpable acts of commission to the petitioner in support of the allegation that he is an active member of the organized crime syndicate headed by accused No. 1. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was arrested on 7-4-2004 and since then he is in judicial custody. He moved an application before this Court for bail. This Court by order dated 17-1-2005 in Cri. P. No. 6086 of 2004 dismissed the said application. Again, petitioner filed present petition for bail just after a month s period. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, sri P. Innayya Reddy contends that notwithstanding the order passed by this court in Crl. P. No. 6086 of 2004, having regard to provisions of Section 437 of Crpc, it is permissible for the Court to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of bail even though he is charged inter alia for offence under APCOCA. Per contra, Sri C. Sadasiva reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI opposing the bail vehemently contends that earlier this Court rejected the bail on the ground that case of the petitioner does not fall in any one of the exceptions carved out by sub-section (4) of Section 21 of APCOCA and therefore bail petition itself is not maintainable. Per contra, Sri C. Sadasiva reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI opposing the bail vehemently contends that earlier this Court rejected the bail on the ground that case of the petitioner does not fall in any one of the exceptions carved out by sub-section (4) of Section 21 of APCOCA and therefore bail petition itself is not maintainable. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as charge-sheet is concerned, petitioner is an active member of criminal syndicate headed by Accused No. 1 that he actively participated in wide variety of operations of criminal syndicate including stocking and storing fake stamps, procuring suitable accommodation for storing fake stamps, procuring lodging facilities and residential facilities for the stay of other members of criminal syndicates and that he played active role in arranging sale of take stamps by using licence for another person. There are clear allegations, which cannot be ignored, nor one can definitely say that there are reasonable grounds to assume that the petitioner is not guilty of offence. At this stage though the petitioner enjoys presumption of innocence, such presumption having regard to allegations in the chargesheet is not that strong to come to a conclusion that petitioner is innocent of the crime. Such presumption is subject to Section 22 of APCOCA according to which in certain circumstances Special Court can presume that the accused has committed such offence. There is sufficient material showing involvement and guilt of petitioner in the crime perpetrated by organized criminal syndicate. Further, in the earlier petition, this Court having considered the same charge-sheet came to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is guilty of offence under apcoca. In such background, can the petitioner claim bail from this Court by bringing in some material to show that he is suffering from chronic diseases and that he has already suffered sufficient pre-trial incarceration? ( 6 ) SECTION 21 of APCOCA deals with scope of application of provisions of Crpc in a modified form to the proceedings taken under APCOCA. The said provision applies to Section 167 (2) and Sections 437 and 439 of Crpc in modified form and excludes application of Section 438 in relation to a case involving arrest of any person on an accusation that he has committed offence under APCOCA. Section 21 (4) thereof is relevant and reads as under:"21. The said provision applies to Section 167 (2) and Sections 437 and 439 of Crpc in modified form and excludes application of Section 438 in relation to a case involving arrest of any person on an accusation that he has committed offence under APCOCA. Section 21 (4) thereof is relevant and reads as under:"21. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond, unless, (a) Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. " ( 7 ) IN effect, sub-section (4) of Section 21 denies bail to a person accused of offence under APCOCA. Under two exceptional circumstances bail can be granted after hearing Public Prosecutor. These exceptions are; (i) that the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence; (ii) that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The "reasonable grounds" only mean the grounds arrived at after perusal of the charge-sheet and the necessary material. Further, it is not only the satisfaction of the Court that the accused is not guilty of offence, but also satisfaction that such accused will not commit any offence after release on bail. In a situation where benefit of either of the two eventualities available to the accused, still such accused cannot be released on bail because, as per plain language of Section 21 (4) both must be present. ( 8 ) IN this case, involvement of vccused No. 19 petitioner herein as spoken to by Accused Nos. 2, 10, 11 and 13, in their confessional statements, and the evidence collected by investigating agency, cannot rule out involvement ot petitioner. Therefore, there are no grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged. ( 9 ) FURTHER, by order dated 17-1-2005 while rejecting the bail to the petitioner this court observed as under: this Court while rejecting the bail plea of a-2 in Crl. P. No. 6066/2004 considered the limits for granting bail. Therefore, there are no grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged. ( 9 ) FURTHER, by order dated 17-1-2005 while rejecting the bail to the petitioner this court observed as under: this Court while rejecting the bail plea of a-2 in Crl. P. No. 6066/2004 considered the limits for granting bail. Conspirators, abettors, and facilitators with the knowledge of the commission of an organized crime are also liable for punishment under sub-section (2) of Section 3. The requirement that to be a member of an organized crime one shall indulge in the activities of organized crime is not necessary to become a conspirator, abettor or facilitator. Similarly, a person who tries to harbour or conceal any member of an organized crime syndicate who is liable for punishment under sub-section (3) of section 3 need not again be a member of an organized crime syndicate. Conspirators, abettors, facilitators or persons who advocate a commission of an organized crime need not necessarily be the members of an organized crime syndicate. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 is a provision, which limits the discretion of the Court in granting bail. Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) of section 21 mandates the Public Prosecutor has to be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail, unless the Court is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail then only he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The allegations in the charge-sheet and confessional statement of A-13 do indicate the involvement of the petitioner in conspiring and there are reasonable grounds believing that the accused is guilty of such offence. In view of the same, the case do not fall under exceptions of sub-section (4) of Section 21 of APCOCA, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. ( 10 ) WHEN the High Court has taken a view that the Court is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the guilt of the accused, in my considered opinion, second application would not lie notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is allegedly suffering from chronic diseases. ( 10 ) WHEN the High Court has taken a view that the Court is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the guilt of the accused, in my considered opinion, second application would not lie notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is allegedly suffering from chronic diseases. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner this Court has gone through various Medical Certificates. Except one certificate all other certificates are prior to 17-1-2005 when this Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner in Criminal petition No. 6086 of 2004 and therefore, the same does not make any difference. ( 11 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, this bail petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.