Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 648 (AP)

Pediredla Srinu v. State of A. P.

2022-07-14

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2022
JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - A2 in Crime No. 355 of 2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Rajamahendravaram North, East Godavari District, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. The case of the prosecution as per mediators' report is that on 24.04.2022 at about 8:30 am, when Police were conducting raid at D. No. 19-2-1/229, Adhamma Dibba Area, they saw mob and on seeing the Police, the said mob disbursed from the scene of offence. Police found one female sitting at the spot and seized 75 liters of liquor from her possession. On questioning that lady confessed that she purchased liquor from A2. Basing on the said report, the present crime is registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and petitioner is arrayed as A2. 3. Heard Sri Parameshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri P. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from his possession. He submits that basing on the confession made by A1, which is weak piece of evidence, petitioner is falsely implicated in the crime. Hence, he prays to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner is habitual offender and he is involved in 3 more crimes which are registered as Crime Nos. 547 of 2020, 200 of 2021 and 354 of 2022. He submits that investigation in the present crime is still pending and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. A perusal of the record shows that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner and he is arrayed as A2 basing on the confession made by A1. Further according to the prosecution, petitioner also involved in three other crimes. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 312 laid the following principles which are to be considered while granting bail. i. The nature and gravity of vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 312 laid the following principles which are to be considered while granting bail. i. The nature and gravity of vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.' 8. Thus, while dealing with bail applications, the Court has to take into consideration with regard to prior antecedents of an accused and the possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences while on bail. Thus, while dealing with bail applications, the Court has to take into consideration with regard to prior antecedents of an accused and the possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences while on bail. In the case on hand, the petitioner is involved in three other crimes which were registered for similar offences and it shows that petitioner is habitual offender. Therefore, though nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he is arrayed basing on the confession made by A1, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in view of his involvement in three other crimes. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.