Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 891 (AP)

Burre Vigneswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-09-14

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the petitioner/Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 509 of 2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Korukonda, Rajamahendravaram Urban District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-B of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.07.2022 at about 5.00 p.m., on credible information, the Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Korukonda, along with staff and mediators, reached Burre Lakshmi (A1) house at Bobbililanka Village, Seethanagaram Mandal. At that time, on seeing the men in uniform, A1 escaped from there. Later, on search, the Police found 5 liters of ID liquor beside the said house and seized the same. Subsequently, when A1 was arrested on 28.07.2022, she confessed that A2, who is her husband purchases contraband on Godavari river bund and gives it to her for selling it in small sachets to get profit. Hence, the above crime was registered against the petitioner and another. 3. Heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime basing on the confession statement of A1. Further, nothing has been seized from the petitioner. Even according to the prosecution, the alleged quantity of contraband seized is 5 liters of ID liquor and there are no crimes pending against the petitioner. Further, it is stated that if the petitioner is arrested, his reputation in the society and his family will be affected and as such prayed to grant pre-arrest bail. 5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application and contended that wife of the petitioner is a habitual offender and she is involved in five other crimes. In the event petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he may not co-operate with the investigation and may influence the witnesses and tamper the evidence. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/A2 was implicated in this case based on the confession of A1. In Bullu Das Vs. In the event petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he may not co-operate with the investigation and may influence the witnesses and tamper the evidence. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/A2 was implicated in this case based on the confession of A1. 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 submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration and as nothing was seized from the petitioner and the quantity of contraband alleged to have been seized from A1 is less than the commercial quantity and as no crimes are pending against the petitioner and as he was implicated in the present crime on the basis of confession statement of A1 and in view of the citation referred to above, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, however, by duly taking the apprehensions of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 509 of 2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Korukonda, Rajamahendravaram Urban District, on his executing self bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Korukonda, Rajamahendravaram Urban District; (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Korukonda, Rajamahendravaram Urban District, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10 a.m. and 12.00 noon till filing of the charge sheet; (iii) The petitioner shall also attend before the Investigation Officer, as and when he is directed to attend; and (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the 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 breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.