Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Procedure vs Unknown on 14 July, 2020

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.2454 OF 2020

ORDER:

-

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.231 of 2020 of Mudivadu Police Station, Chittoor District.

3. The alleged offences against him are under Section 353 of IPC and Section 4 of the PDPP Act.

4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that he has illegally erected flexi boards at a wine ship in public place. The Panchayat Secretary issued a notice to him to remove the same. Yet he did not remove the same. When the de facto complainant has taken steps to remove the said flexi boards, the petitioner has obstructed the public servant from discharging his official duties and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

6. The facts of the case show that the petitioner has illegally erected the flexi boards at public place. Despite issuance of notice to remove the same by the concerned authority, he did not remove the same. Therefore, when the concerned authority has taken steps to remove the same, the petitioner abused the public servant and obstructed him from discharging his official duties. Therefore, the accusation made against the petitioner is prima facie well founded. Having regard to the said facts and circumstances of the case, this 2 Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, since the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with less than seven years period of imprisonment, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 14-07-2020 cs 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273