Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 785 (AP)

Cheemaparthi Salma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-08-23

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/A15 in Cr. No. 166 of 2022 of II Town Police Station, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 379, 120(B), 109 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), Sections 20(1)(c) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) and (x), 29(2) (b) (4) (a) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, Rule 3 of A.P. Sandal wood and red sanders wood possession rule, 1967. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.07.2022, on reliable information, the C.I. of police secured the panchayatdars along with staff reached near Ambati Krishna Reddy oil mill near Maduru Road and found 5 cars stopped near the said mill. On seeing the police, some persons attacked on them with axes but the police caught hold A1 to A4 and remaining persons are escaped from there and seized 40 R.S logs, 9.5 lakhs of cash, 3 cars, 15 axes and 10 stones, 4 cell phones under the cover of panchanama. Basing on the confession of A1 to A4, the petitioner was arrayed and the present crime was registered. 3. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, 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, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds, contends that, basing on the confession statement of Accused Nos. 1 to 4, the petitioner was roped into this crime as Accused No. 15. He further contended that the petitioner never involved in this offence, the police falsely implicated her, because her husband i.e., A6 has been absconding. It is further contended that petitioner has already preferred a bail application vide bearing Crl.M.P. No. 323 of 2022 which was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the investigation is not completed and number of accused are still in absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner having 3 children and in the event of her arrest, there is no person to look after the welfare of her children and her reputation in the family and in the society will be affected. Hence, prays this Court to consider this application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner having 3 children and in the event of her arrest, there is no person to look after the welfare of her children and her reputation in the family and in the society will be affected. Hence, prays this Court to consider this application. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that there are no antecedents against the petitioner and substantial investigation is completed. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, she may hamper the process of investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 6. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 8 SCC 130 , while dealing with the confessional statements made by the accused persons before a police officer, the Supreme Court held as under: '7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started.' 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and material available on record and submissions made by both the learned counsel and as the petitioner has been implicated based on confession statement and as substantial investigation was completed and by taking referred citation into consideration, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A15, however the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing the following conditions. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Cr. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Cr. No. 166 of 2022 of II Town Police Station, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, on the petitioner executing a self bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 12.00 noon, till filing of charge sheet. (iii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. She shall make herself available to the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate proper investigation in this case. (iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact any witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation. Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.