Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dasaripalli Sudheer Sudheer Babu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.85 of 2024
ORDER:-
1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr. P.C.') is directed against the Order, dated 05.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1156 of 2023 in S.C.No.55 of 2021 on the file of Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for the trial of offences against Women, Anantapuramu (for short, 'the trial Court') wherein allowing the petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and cancelled the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.880 of 2020 in Crime No.02 of 2020, dated 02.11.2020 to the petitioner/accused.
2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order came to be passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he placed a copy of the docket sheet, which shows that the case was made over to the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, it was received by the said Court on 30.12.2023, and the matter was posted to 02.01.2024; on 02.01.2024, the matter was adjourned for hearing of the Special Public Prosecutor and for filing counter, subsequently it was posted to 04.01.2024; on 04.01.2024, the trial Court observed that no counter was filed and it treated as no counter. Finally, on 2 TMR,J Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2024 05.01.2024, the trial Court passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice was ordered to the petitioner, it seems that the defence counsel had taken the notice, but he had not appeared, and also, no counter was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that consequent to the cancellation of the bail, the accused was arrested on 19.01.2024 and he was remanded to Sub-Jail, Bukkarayasamudram. Since then, he has been in Sub-Jail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Mehboob Dawood Shaik vs. State of Maharashtra 1 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"8. It is, therefore, clear that when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision reported in Gurdev Singh vs. State of Bihar2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that cancellation of bail cannot done without giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of being heard.
1 (2004) 2 SCC 362 2 (2005) 13 SCC 286, 3 TMR,J Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2024
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision reported in P.K. Shaji alias Thammanam Shaji v. State of Kerala 3, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"6.xxx. As a general proposition, the plea raised by the appellant is correct. It is equally true that the accused who is on bail, should be heard before an order of cancellation of bail is passed by the Court. This Court in Gurdev Singh v. State of Bihar held that the accused must be given notice and opportunity of hearing before the bail granted to him is cancelled."
8. It is settled law that cancellation of the bail can only be made by giving notice to the accused and allowing him to be heard. Thus, the accused must be heard before his bail is cancelled. The impugned order shows that such an opportunity of hearing was not given to the accused. In the event of failure of the learned counsel appearing for the accused, the trial Court could have taken steps to provide Legal Aid counsel on behalf of the accused. The impugned order clearly shows that the bail was granted to the accused vide Order, dated 02.11.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.880 of 2020 in Crime No.02 of 2020, which was cancelled vide Order, dated 05.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1156 of 2023.
9. In the light of the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the view that before cancellation of the bail by the trial Court, the accused could have been allowed to submit his contentions. 3 (2005) 13 SCC 283 4 TMR,J Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2024
10. As a result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the Order, dated 05.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1156 of 2023 in S.C.No.55 of 2021 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Ananthapuramu. The trial Court is directed to restore the Crl.M.P.No.1156 of 2023 and dispose of the same after giving notice to the petitioner/accused by giving opportunity to make his submissions in this regard.
(a) The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Bukkarayasamudram is directed to release the petitioner/accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. On such release, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear on the next date of adjournment and participate in the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.1156 of 2023 in S.C.No.55 of 2021. The trial Court is directed to provide all the material documents to accommodate the petitioner/accused to proceed with the matter.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 08.02.2024 MKK / MS 5 TMR,J Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2024 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.85 OF 2024 Date: 08.02.2024 MS