Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G.Ganesh Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 June, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3952 and 3974 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Accused Nos.18 and 19 in Crime No.119 of 2022 of Anantapur II Town Police Station, Anantapur District, filed Criminal Petition No.3952 of 2022 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.,") seeking pre- arrest bail.
2. Accused Nos.15, 16, 20 and 21 in Crime No.119 of 2022 of Anantapur II Town Police Station, Anantapur District, filed Criminal Petition No.3974 of 2022 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.,") seeking pre- arrest bail.
3. Sum and substance of the special report dated 31.05.2022 is that A-1 confessed before the police that A-18 and his friends called A-1 to A-14 to the apartments of A-18 stating that in the Ananthapuramu Cooperative Urban Bank elections one Jayappa is contesting and the polling date is on 31.05.2022 in SSBN Junior College, Ananthapuramu. A-18 further stated to them that Jayappa has to win the said election and requested them to cast vote by using fake photo identity cards and he also promised them to pay Rs.20,000/- each. A-1 further confessed that A-18 with the help of his pen drive morphed the photographs of A-1 to A-14 and created fake identity cards enabling them to cast votes in the elections. Later, when A-1 to A-14 went to cast vote, the employee of the bank verified the 2 identity cards and found that they are not the cards issued by the Bank authorities and immediately handed over them to police. Basing on the special report, the above crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 of IPC against the petitioners and others.
4. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel representing Sri Ancha Pandu Rangarao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for State.
5. Learned senior counsel before arguing sought permission of this Court to withdraw the Criminal Petition No.3952 of 2022 against A-18. Permission, as sought for, is accorded. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.3952 of 2022 in respect of 1st petitioner/A-18, is dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Learned senior counsel would submit that only basing on the confession of other accused, petitioners were implicated in the above crime and nothing was recovered pursuant to the alleged confession of A-1 to A-14. He would submit that offence under Section 467 of IPC is not attracted to the facts of this case. He would also submit that punishment for offences alleged to be committed under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC is less than seven years. He further submits that petitioners are permanent residents of Anantapur and they will cooperate with the investigation and prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail. 3
7. Per contra, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petitions and would submit that basing on the confession of A-1 to A-14, police registered case against the petitioners and basing on the said confession only, Sections 467 and 120B of IPC were added. He submits that A-18 with the help of others, created fake identity cards for casting vote by A-1 to A-14 in favour of their person and hence, the ingredients of Section 467 of IPC are attracted. He further submits that investigation is still pending and custodial interrogation of petitioners is necessary and at this stage, petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.
8. I have given my anxious consideration and perused the entire material available on record.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors1, observed that the following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
i. The nature and gravity of 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.1
AIR 2011 SC 312 = MANU/SC/1021/2010 4 v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail 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.
10. Confession statement of A-1 before police on 31.05.2022 at 6.30 p.m. would disclose that there is a relationship between A-1 and A-18. A-18 along with his friends called him to the apartment and requested them to cast vote in the coming Ananthapuramu Cooperative Urban Bank elections by using fake identity cards and offered to pay Rs.20,000/- each. The confession further discloses that A-18 with the help of pen drive 5 created fake identity cards of A-1 to A-14 by impersonating the photographs and A-18 and A-19 handed the identity cards to A-1 to A-14 and later when they went to cast vote, the clerk of the Bank verified the identity cards and found that they are not the identity cards issued by the bank authorities.
11. It is apt to extract Section 467 of the IPC, which reads thus:
"467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
12. To attract the offence under Section 467 of IPC, one has to forge the document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or 6 an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.
13. In this case, going by the confession of A-1, A-18 impersonated photographs of A-1 to A-14 with the existing photographs. Prima facie, accusation leveled against the petitioners is not well founded. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners are entitled for pre-arrest bail. However, if the police require the presence of petitioners for further investigation, they can always invoke Section 160 of Cr.P.C., and in such event, petitioners are at liberty to take necessary assistance as per law.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.3952 of 2022 is partly allowed and the 2nd petitioner/A-19 shall be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.119 of 2022 of Anantapur II Town Police Station, Anantapur District on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Anantapur II Town Police Station, Anantapur District. Criminal Petition No.3952 of 2022 in respect of 1st petitioner/A-18 is concerned, is dismissed as withdrawn.
15. Criminal Petition No.3974 of 2022 is allowed and the petitioners/A-15, 16, 20 and 21 shall be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.119 of 2022 of Anantapur II Town Police Station, Anantapur District on his 7 executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Anantapur II Town Police Station, Anantapur District.
16. After release, petitioners shall cooperate with investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer, as and when their presence is required. Petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence. It is made clear that 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.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 28th June, 2022 PVD