Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 402 (AP)

Lakshmana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-07-07

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2021
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed by petitioner/1st informant under Section 482 r/w 439(2) of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking cancellation of bail in C.C.No.280 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty in Crime No.378 of 2013 or Rayachoti (Urban) Police Station, granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein who are accused in the above Calendar Case for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 34 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w 6-C(2) of A.P.Act XXVI of 1971 and Section 81 of Indian Registration Act r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has granted bail on August, 2015 and the case was posted to 14.08.2015 for appearance of accused. On 14.08.2015, all the accused were present, copies of all the documents were furnished to them and the case was adjourned to 28.08.2015 for examination of the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Since then, all these three years one or the other of these three accused, in concert with each other of them, are abstaining from attending the Court with common object of stalling trial of the case and the Court below without taking any coercive steps went on adjourning the case from time to time for examination of accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C though the victim is senior citizen, aged 70 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has dismissed the application seeking cancellation of bail by the prosecution observing that the reasons of failure of accused to appear before the Court on one or the other reason is not sufficient ground to cancel their bail. Though there is delay in conducting trial it can't be a sole ground to cancel the bail granted in favour of accused as they are not absconded and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 4. Though there is delay in conducting trial it can't be a sole ground to cancel the bail granted in favour of accused as they are not absconded and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subash Chand vs. State of Haryana, (1988) AIR SC 584 and in Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 and submits that as the petitioner failed to appear before the Court and as they are not cooperating with the trial, the Court below ought to have cancelled the bail to the accused. 5. Along with this petition, transfer criminal petitions which were filed by the petitioner were also listed before this Court. The orders passed by the Court below while dismissing the transfer petitions filed by the petitioner shows that petitioner has conveniently dragging on the matter from his side and he has also made several allegations against the Judicial officers. Now the petitioner is before this Court seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that on some occasions the accused are not present. This Court is not able to appreciate the same and there are no reasonable grounds to cancel the bail granted by the Court below. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 7. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.