Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 728 (AP)

MOHD. FEROZ KHAN v. STATE OF A. P.

2009-10-21

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2009
( 1 ) THIS is an application filed under section 439 Cr. P. C. by A-1 and A-2 in S. C. No. 93 of 2006 of P. S. , Alwal registered for the offences under Sections 376,341,506 IPC and section3 (1) (xii) of S. C. /s. T. (P. O. A.) Act, 1989 and Sections 17 and 20 of Bonded Labour system (Abolition) Act, 1976. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners represented that the petition is not being pressed. In spite of the same, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:- ( 4 ) THE accused when enlarged on bail should cooperate with the Court in early disposal of the case. The tactics to delay the proceedings or to win over the witnesses or threaten the witnesses should not be tolerated. This is a case where a poor minor girl from Orissa when came to work as a labourer was said to be raped continuously by the accused being the masters of the girl using their influence. The record reveals that the trial schedule was fixed from 14-7-2009 onwards. It is most unfortunate that the summons could not be served on the witnesses and some of the witnesses seem to have refused to receive the summons. The prosecution case reveals that on the earlier occasion, the father of the girl was threatened and he was beaten and he was sent to Orissa to compel the victim girl to fulfill the lust of the accused. If that is the situation, then the police should not feel that their responsibility is over by filing charge sheet. In fact, they will have more responsibility till conclusion of the trial. It is the duty of the prosecution to see that some protection is given to the witnesses. The witnesses should also feel secured and they should be in a position to appear before the court and depose without any fear. Since the petitioners were intentionally absenting themselves from the court, when the presence of the witnesses was secured with great difficulty, it is clear that the petitioners have stalled the proceedings and in such a case the petitioners/accused, who intentionally stalled the proceedings of trial, are not entitled for bail. Since the petitioners were intentionally absenting themselves from the court, when the presence of the witnesses was secured with great difficulty, it is clear that the petitioners have stalled the proceedings and in such a case the petitioners/accused, who intentionally stalled the proceedings of trial, are not entitled for bail. On 28-7-2009 when listed witnesses 2, 4, 11, 12 and 14 were produced with great difficulty, A-2 was called absent and counsel appearing for the petitioner filed petition under Section 317 Cr. P. C. to condone his absence. The said petition was allowed binding over the witnesses. The defence counsel was instructed to secure the presence of A-1 to A-3 on the next day without fail. However, on the next day, i. e. , on 28-7-2009, a-1 and A-2 were called absent and their counsel reported no instructions and he is declined to proceed with the trial in their absence. ( 5 ) THE liberty given by the Court by granting bail to the accused is being misused. The accused must appear before the Court at the time of trial. In exceptional circumstances only, they should file petition under section 317 Cr. P. C. for valid reasons. Even when they file petition under Section 317 cr. P. C. trial should go on. The accused having absented himself from the Court cannot take advantage of his absence. If the identify of such accused is involved, then adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused for his non-appearance before the Court. Therefore, it is also the duty of the counsel to co-operate with the Court. It is most unfortunate that when A-1 and A-2 did not appear before the court, their counsel reported no instructions. It is clear that only with an intention to stall the proceedings, such tactics were adopted by the accused. ( 6 ) IN the above circumstances, I am of the view that the lower Court was justified in dismissing the petition. Such accused shall not be released on bail till conclusion of the trial. In the circumstances, the III Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga reddy District is directed to dispose of the case, as early as possible and the concerned police are directed to see that all the prosecution witnesses including the police officers should be informed well in advance and they must present before the Court. In the circumstances, the III Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga reddy District is directed to dispose of the case, as early as possible and the concerned police are directed to see that all the prosecution witnesses including the police officers should be informed well in advance and they must present before the Court. The superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy district is also directed to monitor the trial proceedings till conclusion of the trial. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Criminal Petition is dismissed