Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 540 (AP)

A. Balappa v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-21

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") to enlarge the petitioner/ A-4 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.54 of 2020 of III Town Police Station, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2020 at about 4 P.M. one Peram Bayapu Reddy came to Police Station and gave a complaint alleging that on 19.02.2020 morning at about 8:00 A.M. the complainant, his wife, son and daughter-in-law went to Bangalore by locking the house at Dwarakamayi Apartment at YMR Colony, Proddatur town. One Lakshmaiah is the watchman of said apartment. He visits his house daily in the morning at 6:00 A.M. for fetching water to the plants. As usual on 21.02.2020 at about 6.30 A.M. when he came to fetch water, he found that the grill door situated on the left side of main door was broken. The same was informed to the neighbours and to the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant's family returned back to Hyderabad on receiving the said information and reached their house at 1:30 P.M. They found that cash of Rs.1,90,000/-, certain gold and silver articles were missing. Basing on the same, the present crime is registered and after investigation crime was registered against A-1 to A-3. They were remanded to custody. Subsequently the petitioner's name was added. 3. Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier when petitioner's wife, sons and daughter-in-law were beaten up and taken away by the Police. After sometime both his wife and daughter were released on 02.03.2020 but his sons were not released. Hence, he was constrained to file Habeas Corpus petition vide W.P.No.6270 of 2020 before this Court. The Police have filed their counter wherein they have stated that they have not arrested the petitioner's sons and further they have also stated that the petitioner's family members are habitual offenders and have indulged in this type of crimes and other crimes were also registered against them. 5. The Police have filed their counter wherein they have stated that they have not arrested the petitioner's sons and further they have also stated that the petitioner's family members are habitual offenders and have indulged in this type of crimes and other crimes were also registered against them. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the crime only for the reason that he has filed W.P.No.6270 of 2020. It is stated that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and sought indulgence of this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Per contra learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is habitual offender and there are other cases registered against the petitioner's family. According to his instructions, the petitioner used to sell the articles stolen by A-3, A-5 and A-6. The petitioner has actively involved in the case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that already A-3, A-5 and A-6 were granted regular bail by the Court below. 8. In view of the above, this Court prima facie is of the view that this is not a case for anticipatory bail. However, the petitioner shall surrender before the Court below and on such surrender, the Court below shall decide his bail application on the same day and pass orders in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly the criminal petition is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.