Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 892 (AP)

Melam Bindu v. State of A. P.

2022-09-14

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 438 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking pre arrest bail, by the petitioners/A2, in Crime No.110 of 2022 of Chirala-I Town Police Station, Prakasham District, registered for the offence punishable under Ss. 8(c) r/w. 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 2/4/2022, on credible information, the Inspector of Police, Chirala along with staff and mediators went to Vijilipet, Chirala and found A-1 infront of her house holding one black colour plastic cover and on seeing the police, she tried to run away, but she was caught and she confessed that the plastic bag contained ganja and she was getting ganja from her daughter/ petitioner herein, selling the same to eke out her livelihood. The police seized 470 grams of ganja from her possession and hence, the above crime was registered. 3. Heard Sri S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Sri S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2, would submit that, earlier, the petitioner got filed Crl.M.P.Nos. 198 & 234 of 2022 for grant of bail and they were dismissed by the learned Special Sessions Judge on 26/4/2022 and 12/5/2022 respectively on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner/A-2 are serious in nature. The Criminal petition No.4703 of 2022 got filed by the petitioner/A-2 for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court on 12/7/2022 on the ground that the offence is serious in nature, but now there are changed circumstances. He would further submit that the petitioner/A-2 is a woman and she has to look after her son of tender age and that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner/A-2 and she was implicated in this case basing in on the confessional statement of co-accused/A-1, which is a weak piece of evidence and that too obtained while A-1 was in police custody and hence not admissible. Further, the contraband alleged to have been seized from the possession of the co-accused/A-1 is 470 grams, which is small quantity and there are no antecedents against the petitioner/A-2 and further contended that substantial part of the investigation is completed. Further, the contraband alleged to have been seized from the possession of the co-accused/A-1 is 470 grams, which is small quantity and there are no antecedents against the petitioner/A-2 and further contended that substantial part of the investigation is completed. If the petitioner/A-2 is arrested, her reputation as well as that of her family would be tarnished. Hence, prayed to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. the co-accused/A-1 from whose possession the alleged contraband was seized was granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor though admitted that the contraband involved in this case is small quantity and there are no antecedents against the petitioner, he, however opposed the petition submitting that since the petitioner/A-2 was shown as accused basing on the confessional statement of coaccused/A-1, who is none other than her mother and the petitioner may not cooperate with the process of investigation and prayed to dismiss the petition. He brought to the notice of this Court that the coaccused/A1 from whose possession the contraband was seized was granted bail. 6. Perusal of the record would indicate that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner and the contraband said to have been seized from possession of A-1 is a small quantity and that the petitioner/A-2 was implicated in this case basing on the confessional statement of the co-accused/A-1. 7. 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.P5, 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." 8. 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." 8. In view of the above, keeping in view that the petitioner is a woman and taking into consideration of the fact that the quantity of ganja involved is a small quantity and that there are no antecedents against the petitioner/A-2 and the co-accused/A1 was on bail, this Court is inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner, however, the apprehension expressed by the Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, has been taken due care of, by imposing the following conditions. (i) The petitioner/A-2, shall be released on bail on her executing self bond for Rs.25, 000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Chirala I-Town Police Station, in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.110 of 2022 of Chirala I Town Police Station; (ii) The petitioner/A-2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Chirala I Town Police Station, Prakasam District, twice in a month i.e. on 2nd and 4th Sunday of the month, till filing of the charge sheet; (iii) the petitioner shall make herself available to the investigating officer and shall report before him as and when directed for the purpose of investigation (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall co-operate with the process of investigation. (v) Any infraction of the above conditions would entail cancellation of bail and the prosecution is at liberty to file application-seeking cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.