Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1200 (AP)

Pathapathi Naidu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-27

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2024
ORDER : This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking regular bail in C.C.No.27 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420 and 468 read with 471 I.P.C. 2. Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Krishna Vamsi Suragani, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dilip Jaya Ram, the learned Central Government Counsel submitted their respective arguments. 3. Perused the record. 4. When an accused applied for regular bail and was granted the same and availed it and when the same thing happened twice, what should be the determining parameter when he applies for bail on the third occasion in the same crime is the question that has arisen in this case. 5. This petitioner is A.2 in C.C.No.27 of 2017 pending before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. A.1 therein is officer of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and A.3 therein as well as the present petitioner are private persons. The allegations are that this petitioner obtained loan by showing immovable property as security and that loan was granted by A.1 and investigation revealed that the property which was tendered as security never stood in the revenue records in the name of this petitioner. It was in those circumstances the charge sheet was laid. 6. Petitioner applied and was granted bail initially. After cognizance being taken when summons were sought to be served he did not respond and that necessitated a non-bailable warrant and by its execution he was taken to judicial custody on 11.12.2018 and then he applied for bail and that was granted and he availed it. Thereafter the case stood adjourned from one day to the other without any progress. On 02.05.2024 the trial judge gave a direction that all the three accused should attend Court hearing so that the case could proceed further. Despite such direction this petitioner did not appear before the Court. It was in such circumstances, to secure his presence, for the progress of the case once again non-bailable warrant was issued and with great difficulty it was executed and he was arrested and was brought before the trial Court. Despite such direction this petitioner did not appear before the Court. It was in such circumstances, to secure his presence, for the progress of the case once again non-bailable warrant was issued and with great difficulty it was executed and he was arrested and was brought before the trial Court. It was thereafter he sought bail on two occasions and the learned trial Court dismissed the same by recording reasons. It is in those circumstances the petitioner had moved this Court seeking bail. 7. Cause title in the charge sheet would show that this accused is resident of Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. The present bail petition in its cause title would show the said address as well as the current address of the petitioner, which is at Tadepalli of Guntur District. One of the reasons that prompted the learned trial Court to refuse granting bail was that this petitioner neither informed the Court nor informed the C.B.I. about his change of address. It was in such circumstances it became very difficult for the State and the Court to secure his presence. An interesting fact to be noted is that althrough this petitioner has been represented by his counsel before the trial Court and yet there was no submission from the counsel appearing for him about change of address. That failure caused the strain in the system. 8. The earnest submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are about petitioner’s presence before the trial Court on various occasions so as to say that he is not against the process of law. The other submission revolves around various difficulties in the family and the health of children and others and the death of mother of the petitioner. It is on such submissions the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner would scrupulously participate in the trial process and prays for release of him on bail. During hearing it emerged that when the case involves multiple accused and all of them together never appeared before the trial Court enabling the trial Court to progress further in the case and on every occasion one or the other accused abstained from attending the Court and on some application the absence was condoned and the matter was adjourned thereby leaving the case at a stage that remains static without any progress. With a view to ensure disciplined presence of petitioner what should be an appropriate measure was debated. It was in that regard, the learned Senior Counsel cited rulings. Guddan alias Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242 - That is a case where the accused was tried and was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced. While his appeal was pending, he applied for suspension of sentence and release on bail. Favourable order was passed but the bail conditions were made very stiff whereunder he was directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- towards fine that was imposed by the Court below and was further directed to furnish surety of Rs.1,00,000/- and two bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each. In the given facts and circumstances, their Lordships found that they were too onerous and the principle was reiterated stating that the bail conditions must be reasonable and shall not be freakish and should not nullify the very order of bail. The other ruling cited is Jitendra Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 434. That was a case of an excise offence where investigation was still in progress and the accused applied for bail and while granting bail, the learned Court directed him to pay fine of Rs.60,000/- which was provided for the penal offence that was alleged against him. Therefore, the question was as to whether fine can be imposed even earlier to the commencement of trial. Explaining the law, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside such condition stating that what could be done at the end of the trial cannot be done even before the trial commenced and imposition of punishment while granting bail is impermissible. 9. Both the rulings are apt for the principles decided therein in the context of the facts that were available there. However, neither of these rulings is directly on the point except to the effect that the bail conditions should not be onerous. One is required to notice Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570 . Hon’ble Supreme Court of India spelt out the principle to the effect that at the time of granting of bail, the conditions to be prescribed should be reasonable. One is required to notice Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570 . Hon’ble Supreme Court of India spelt out the principle to the effect that at the time of granting of bail, the conditions to be prescribed should be reasonable. Such conditions must have relation to the facts and permissible in the circumstance and they shall be effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. Thus, conditions are to be imposed depending upon the nature of the case and the conduct of the parties. In the case at hand, there is a clear demonstration by record that this petitioner has been in the habit of retarding the process of the trial for one or the other reasons and the trial did not progress despite lapse of seven years. Keeping this in mind this Court must record the conditions. 10. It seems that on violation of bail conditions, the bonds stand forfeited and the trial Courts have to take necessary steps in terms of provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure such as Sections 446, 446A, 447. However, as the trial Courts have not been agile enough to take such steps the accused and their sureties have not been sincere in keeping up their promises concerning the presence of accused at Court hearings. This led to some indiscipline among those who obtained bail orders in their favour. To counterbalance that indiscipline one condition that could be imposed is to direct the accused to make cash deposit as provided in Section 445 Code of Criminal Procedure. That would enable the trial Court to take swift and effective steps in the event of necessity. 11. Since the petitioner was earlier granted bail now there is no particular reason to revisit his eligibility for bail on merits with reference to the crime mentioned allegations. Since trial process is to take place before the trial Court and he must have that liberty to put up his own defence, this Court is inclined to grant bail in the following terms: In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Since trial process is to take place before the trial Court and he must have that liberty to put up his own defence, this Court is inclined to grant bail in the following terms: In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Petitioner/A.2 shall be enlarged on bail on making a cash deposit of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) and execute a personal bond and shall furnish two sureties each for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the trial Court and participate in pretrial and trial process without fail.