Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Budda Adinarayana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH me TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE & : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI a CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1321 OF 2021 Between: Budda Adinarayana, S/o. Jangamayya, Age 45 years, Occ: Special Officer, Bhavanampadu Port Project, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Public Prosecutor, For ACB, Rajamahendravaram, A.P (Through Investigation Officer), High Court for the State of AP. ..._Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.4/RCT-RJY/2020 of PS. Rajamahendravaram. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of, M/s.Manchikala Renuka (SC for ACB ANDHRA) for the Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Criminal Petition No.1321 of 2021 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.") seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A.O.2 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.4/RCT-RJY/2020 of Rajamahendravaram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
2. A complaint is lodged by one N. V. R. Gandhi stating that he has been supplying fresh water to the ships at "ANCHORAGE PORT" at Kakinada through his barge named "SUNN GLORY"
and he has to get his registration renewed every year so as to ply the barge into the sea. On 09.06.2019, the de facto complainant got the barge registration renewed which is valid up to 08.06.2020 and the petitioner advised him in December, 2019 through A.O.1 to change barge registration renewal into "Kakinada Registration" by cancelling the Inland Vessel Registration renewal. Accordingly, he met A.O.1 on 06.01.2020 at Port Office, who asked him to submit necessary documents to process his application and for that, he demanded an amount of Rs.60,000/- as bribe. It is further alleged that on 23.01.2020, he met A.O.1 and submitted necessary documents and after perusal of the same, A.O.1 reiterated the demand of Rs.60,000/- by saying that the petitioner was asking him to collect the said bribe amount and further informed the de facto complainant to 2 LK, J CRLP.No.1321 of 2021 meet the petitioner directly and the de facto complainant recorded the said conversation through his cell phone. Basing on the same, the present crime is registered.
3. Heard Sri Vinodh Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Gayatri Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for ACB.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was given on 06.02.2020, after one year the petitioner was issued notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner has been cooperating with the enquiry. He submits that as per the directions of the Court, the petitioner appeared before the State Forensic Lab for recording sample voice. He submits that in the entire complaint, there is no allegation against the petitioner, except a bald allegation that the petitioner has directed A.O.1 to collect money. Basing on the confessional statement of A.O.1, the petitioner is arrayed as A.O.2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits. that though the crime is registered on 06.02.2020, so far no action has been initiated by the police. He further submits that even if the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, there cannot be any apprehension of tampering with the evidence as the petitioner is cooperating with the enquiry and the entire material is in the custody of police. The petitioner is a Grade-l Officer, and a direct recruitee appointed as Port Officer, Kakinada in the year 2013. Now as the petitioner is due for his promotion as Chief Nautical Officer, Andhra Pradesh Maritime
3 LK, J CRLP.No.1321 of 2021 Board, and if the petitioner is arrested, it would have repercussion to his career. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court and is ready to cooperate with the enquiry. As such, his case may be considered for grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. On the other hand, Smt. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB, submits that in the complaint, though the complainant has not stated in so many words, but as per the statement of A.O.1, he categorically mentioned about the active involvement of the petitioner. Learned standing counsel invited the attention of this court to the mediator's report, wherein A.O.1 has specifically stated about the involvement of the petitioner/A.O.2. She further submits that when he was examined by the D.S.P. and enquired about formalities for registration, he categorically stated that generally when an application is filed for registration of Barge/ fishing boat, the same has to be done within 7 days and renewal should be done within 3 days from the date of receipt of application. She submits that in the instant case, it came to the notice of the petitioner that A.O.1 was demanding bribe and when DSP questioned the petitioner whether any action has been taken for gistration of the Barge of the de facto complainant or lapses in re whether any memo has been given to him, the petitioner did not give any explanation. It is also stated that when the DSP asked was d nether he issued any memo to the A.O.1, the petitioner state whe . . ' that he has not initiated any action. She further submits tha a 4 LK, J CRLP.No.1321 of 2021 A.O.1 has been arrested and released on bail. As such, since there are specific overt acts against the petitioner, he is not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel, it appears that in the complaint, absolutely there is no whisper against the petitioner except a bald allegation that at the behest _ of the petitioner/A.O.2, A.O.1 demanded money. The complaint was registered on 06.02.2020 and nearly after one year, the petitioner was issued notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner has been cooperating with the enquiry. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner/A.O.2 is not attending the court and not cooperating with the enquiry. It appears that as per the averments in the petition, the petitioner had appeared before the court on several occasions. Prima facie, it appears, the petitioner is cooperating with the enquiry. While granting bail, the court has to take into consideration the following factors:
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;
) 5 LK, J CRLP.No.1321 of 2021
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 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.
(Satilingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others!).
In the instant case, prima facie, this court is of the view that even if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the prosecution that he will " AIR 2011 SC 312 = MANU/SC/1021/2010 J a Dower 6 LK, J CRLP.No.1321 of 2021 tamper with the evidence as the entire evidence is with the prosecution and the statements of A.O.1, A.O.2 and the de facto complainant have already been recorded. Hence, this court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A.O.2.
7. -Accordingly,. the Criminal Petition is. allowed. The petitioner/A.O.2 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.4/RCT-RJY/2020 of Rajamahendravaram Police Station, East Godavari District, on his executing personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. However, the petitioner/A.O.2 shall cooperate with the investigation. In case the petitioner/A.O.2 fails to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution is at liberty to make appropriate application seeking cancellation of his bail.
Sd/-E.KameswaraRao ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY! On _ SECTION OFFICER:
. The Special Judge for ACB Cases at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.
. The Investigation Officer, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. .
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.
One CC to Sri. Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s. Manchikala Renuka (SC for ACB ANDHRA) [OPUC] One spare copy.
HIGH COURT LK,J DATED:05/03/2021 ORDER CRLP.No.1321 of 2021 DIRECTION Sy '4 y Pee ree ret G3 tome:
i te