Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ponguru Narayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 September, 2022
1
NV,J
Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3811, 3833, 3834 AND 3835 of 2022
% Dated 06.09.2022
#
Crl.P.No.3811 of 2022
Ponguru Narayana,
s/o. Late Subbaramaiah
R/o. D.No.16-11-540, Haranathapuram,
1st lane, Nellore District .. Petitioner
Vs.
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Through Station House Officer, CID P.S
Amaravati, Mangalagiri
Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Amaravati .. Respondent
Crl.P.No.3833 of 2022
K.P.V. Anjani Kumar alias Bobby
Director,
M/s Ramakrishna Housing Private Limited
R/o H.No.40-5/3-14 A, Plot No.103,
HRT Sri Sai Apartment, Tekkil Road
Syam Nagar, Vijayawada Urban
Krishna District . Petitioner
Vs.
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Through Station House Officer, CID P.S
Amaravati, Mangalagiri
Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Amaravati .. Respondent
Crl.P.No.3834 of 2022
Lingamaneni Ramesh,
S/o. Poorna Bhaskar Rao,
R/o. D.No.60-2-1/A, Lingamaneni Dream House
Gayathri Nagar, Vijayawada Urban
Krishna District ..... Petitioner
Vs.
2
NV,J
Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Through Station House Officer, CID P.S
Amaravati, Mangalagiri
Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Amaravati .. Respondent
Crl.P.No.3835 of 2022
Lingamaneni Venkaa Surya Rajasekhar
s/o. L. Poorna Bhaskar Rao,
R/o. D.No.60-2-1/A,
Lingamaneni Dream Homes, Gayatri Nagar,
Vijayawada (Urban)
Krishna District .. Petitioner
Vs.
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Through Station House Officer, CID P.S
Amaravati, Mangalagiri
Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Amaravati .. Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 06.09.2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy
of the Judgment?
3
NV,J
Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022
+ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA
% Dated 06.09.2022
#
Crl.P.No.3811 of 2022
Ponguru Narayana,
s/o. Late Subbaramaiah
R/o. D.No.16-11-540, Haranathapuram,
1st lane, Nellore District .. Petitioner
Vs.
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Through Station House Officer, CID P.S
Amaravati, Mangalagiri
Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Amaravati .. Respondent
Crl.P.No.3833 of 2022
K.P.V. Anjani Kumar alias Bobby
Director,
M/s Ramakrishna Housing Private Limited
R/o H.No.40-5/3-14 A, Plot No.103,
HRT Sri Sai Apartment, Tekkil Road
Syam Nagar, Vijayawada Urban
Krishna District . Petitioner
Vs.
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Through Station House Officer, CID P.S
Amaravati, Mangalagiri
Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Amaravati .. Respondent
Crl.P.No.3834 of 2022
Lingamaneni Ramesh,
S/o. Poorna Bhaskar Rao,
R/o. D.No.60-2-1/A, Lingamaneni Dream House
Gayathri Nagar, Vijayawada Urban
Krishna District ..... Petitioner
Vs.
4
NV,J
Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Through Station House Officer, CID P.S
Amaravati, Mangalagiri
Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Amaravati .. Respondent
Crl.P.No.3835 of 2022
Lingamaneni Venkaa Surya Rajasekhar
s/o. L. Poorna Bhaskar Rao,
R/o. D.No.60-2-1/A,
Lingamaneni Dream Homes, Gayatri Nagar,
Vijayawada (Urban)
Krishna District .. Petitioner
Vs.
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Through Station House Officer, CID P.S
Amaravati, Mangalagiri
Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P. at Amaravati .. Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioners : 1. Sri Kanukolanu Sai Sri Sanjay
2. Sri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana
3. Sri G. Subba Rao
Counsel for Respondents : Learned Addl. Advocate General
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2018) 5 SCC 341
2. (1998) 1 SCC 1
3. (2018) 1 SCC 196
4. (2016) 1 SCC 152
5. AIR 1980 SC 1632
5
NV,J
Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022
6. 2016 (1) ALT (CRL) 122 (S.C)
7. AIR 2011 SC 312
8. (2018) 6 SCC 454
9. (1994) 6 SCC 260
10. AIR 1980 SC 1632
11. AIR 2012 SC 1676
12. (2021) 2 SCC 427
6
NV,J
Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3811, 3833, 3834 AND 3835 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Before commencing arguments, learned Additional Advocate General raised oral objections and sought My recusal from hearing these criminal petitions, on the ground of change of roster of criminal petitions and they should be heard by appropriate Bench having roster; as such, this Court cannot hear the matters.
The interlocutory application(s) that were filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Crime Investigation Department were returned, and thereafter, fresh applications were not filed. Hence, except oral objections for recusal, no interlocutory application(s) are filed. However, this Court feels it appropriate to answer the objections of the learned Additional Advocate General.
The series of events of the criminal petitions are as follows:
1. Originally, these criminal petitions were listed before the Court on 19.05.2022. At request of the learned Public Prosecutor, for instructions and appearance of Special Public Prosecutor for C.I.D, they were posted to 26.05.2022.
2. On 26.05.2022, again the Special Public Prosecutor sought time for appearance of learned Advocate General. Learned counsel for 7 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 the petitioners were heard and learned Special Public Prosecutor requested for time for appearance of learned Additional Advocate General, but argued the same. The Court directed the respondent
- police not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners till next date of hearing and posted the matters to 09.06.2022.
3. On 09.06.2022, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners were completed, but at request of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the matters were posted to 15.06.2022 under the caption „Part-heard‟ for hearing the learned Additional Advocate General by extending the interim orders until further orders.
4. On 16.06.2022, at request of the learned Additional Advocate General, matters were listed on 17.06.2022.
5. On 17.06.2022, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional General appearing for the respondent - State, reserved the matters for orders. A long standing customary practice followed in the common High Court and still prevailing in this High Court is that, the administrative control of the High Court vests with the Hon‟ble The Chief Justice alone and the Hon‟ble Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster. It is his 8 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 prerogative to constitute Benches of the Court and to allot cases to the Benches so constituted. The roster dealing with sitting arrangements of Hon‟ble Judges is released by the order of the Hon‟ble The Chief Justice and published by the Registrar (Judicial). At the end of the roster „Nota Bene (N.B)‟ is issued, drawing attention to the information. The N.B reads as follows:
"All matters, on change of roster, shall stand released and shall be posted before the Bench/s as per the roster, except matters which are reserved for judgment or under the caption „CAV‟ or the matters which are part-heard"
Thus, N.B specifies that, all matters, on change of roster, shall stand released and shall be posted before the Bench/s as per the roster, except matters which are reserved for judgment or under the caption „CAV‟ or the matters which are part-heard.
These matters have a long and chequered history. After listing, they were not heard instantly. Prior to hearing, they have undergone several adjournments upon the request made on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General. Due to his non-availability and inconvenience, all the learned counsel for the petitioners insisted for hearing their arguments and they concluded their arguments on 9 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 09.06.2022. In the presence of learned counsel appearing for all the parties, these matters were directed to be listed under the caption part- heard. This Hon‟ble Court reopened after the end of summer vacation and as per the roster, these part-heard matters were listed before this Court as per the cause list released by the Registry by order of The Hon‟ble The Chief Justice. The administrative control of the High Court vests with the Chief Justice alone and the Chief Justice is the master of the Roster and it is his prerogative to constitute Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted. As per the prerogative of the Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster, the cases were listed before the bench presided over by the learned Judge and the learned Judge is duty bound to hear the cases listed before him. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India declared umpteen times that the „Chief Justice in his individual capacity is the Master of Roster and it is his prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate the subjects which would be dealt with by the respective Benches. This issue has been dealt with by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ashok Pande v. Supreme Court of India1; State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand2 and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of 1 (2018) 5 SCC 341 2 (1998) 1 SCC 1 10 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 India3.
The position of the Chief Justice of a High Court was elucidated in a judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (referred supra). During the course of the judgment, the following broad conclusions were formulated with regard to the position of the Chief Justice.
"(1) That the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst the equals.
(2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocated cases to the benches so constituted. (3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.
(4) That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no Division Bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench themselves and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice. (5) That the Chief Justice can take cognizance of an application laid before him under Rule 55 (supra) and refer a case to the larger bench for its disposal and he can exercise this jurisdiction even in relation to a part-heard case.
(6) That the puisne Judges cannot "pack and choose" any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice.
(7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the Chief Justice. (8) That Shethna, J. had no authority or jurisdiction to send for the record of the disposed of writ petition and make comments on the manner of transfer of the writ petition to the Division Bench or on the merits of that writ petition."3
(2018) 1 SCC 196 11 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 In Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (referred supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the principle which was noticed and rcognized in the decision of Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (referred supra) in relation to the jurisdiction and authority of the Chief Justice of the High Court "must apply proprio vigore as regards the power of the Chief Justice of India". The position of the Chief Justice was reiterated with the following observations.
"The aforesaid position though stated as regards the High Court, we are absolutely certain that the said principle is applicable to the Supreme Court. We are disposed to think so. Unless such a position is clearly stated, there will be utter confusion. Be it noted, this has been also the convention of this Court, and the convention has been so because of the law. We have to make it clear without any kind of hesitation that the convention is followed because of the principles of law and because of judicial discipline and decorum. Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches. Needless to say, neither a two- Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a Bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the Bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the Bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be passed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.
An institution has to function within certain parameters and that is why there are precedents, rules and conventions. As far as the composition of Benches is concerned, we accept the principles stated in Prakash Chand (supra), which was stated in the context of the High Court, and clearly state that the same shall squarely apply to the Supreme Court and there cannot be any kind of command or order directing the Chief Justice of India to constitute a particular Bench."12
NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 According to Rule (iii) of Part-I of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Standing Orders (revised) 2004, The Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary with powers of Administration of the High Court and of the Administration of justice throughout the State.
In the present cases, all the criminal petitions went through adjournments on 19.05.2022, 26.05.2022 and they were ordered to be listed in the causelist in the caption „part heard‟ on 09.06.2022 and 16.06.2022, finally reserved for orders on 17.06.2022. It is to be noted that, at request of the learned Special Prosecutor, the matters were listed under the caption „part heard‟ for hearing the learned Additional Advocate General. Keeping in view of the instruction contained in N.B, the matters which were reserved for judgment or under the caption „CAV or matters which are part-heard need not be released in general course, except with the permission of this Court, or except with the order of The Hon‟ble The Chief Justice. It is not the case of „pick and choose‟ of any pending case before this Court. They were listed as per the roster. Hence, the contention canvassed by the learned Additional Advocate General is rejected. Moreover, being the highest Law Officer representing the State, making a request for recusal of Judge is unwarranted and shall be deprecated.
13
NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3811, 3833, 3834 AND 3835 of 2022 These criminal petitions are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") by petitioners/Accused Nos.2,3,4 & 5 apprehending their arrest, in Crime No.16 of 2022 of CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 420, 34,35,36,37,166,167 and 217 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to direct the concerned Station House Officer to release them on bail in the event of their arrest, in connection with the above crime.
As the lis in all the petitions is one and the same, all the four criminal petitions are heard together to pronounce common order.
The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 to 5 in the above crime. The defacto complainant - Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy is the Member of Legislative Assembly, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
As per the First Information Report, the defacto complainant, lodged a complaint dated 27.04.2022 with the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D), Andhra Pradesh, alleging that certain illegal and corrupt activities are committed by highly placed Government officials in the then 14 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 Government dispensation between 2014 to 2019 with regard to designing of the Master Plan of Andhra Pradesh Capital and Capital City; alignment of inner Ring Road and its connected artery roads and to cause wrongful gain to certain chosen persons and entities connected to the decision making authorities, thereby derived maximum pecuniary benefits, caused corresponding wrongful loss to the general public and also to the public exchequer, thus amounting to cheating. On the strength of the complaint, the police registered above crime against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 420, 34,35,36,37,166,167 and 217 of I.P.C.
Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kanukolanu Sai Sri Sanjay, Sri Posani Venkateswarulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General representing learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
At the outset, learned Senior Counsel, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas contended that, the present complaint filed by the defacto complainant who is an M.L.A of the party in power after lapse of six years from the date of alleged offence without explaining any reasons for delay and 15 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 with malice intention only. He further submits that the inception or invocation of present complaint is nothing but misuse of criminal law and abuse of process, in view of Section 146 of The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act, 2014, (hereinafter „Act, 2014‟) bars initiation of any prosecution against any person while officiating his duties in pursuance of the Act and Rules.
Section 146 of APCRDA Act, 2014 is extracted hereunder:
"Bar of legal proceedings:
No suit, prosecution or the proceeding shall lie against the Government or Authority or officer or person for any act done or purporting to be done under or in pursuance of the Act or the rules or standing orders made there under."
Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior counsel would contend that the complaint was lodged with an abnormal delay of six years and such inordinate delay was neither explained in the complaint by the complainant nor by the police in the First Information Report. Moreover, the present complaint was lodged with an evil intention and out of political rivalry after completion of six years from the date of alleged receipt of representations from the public, even then no cogent and satisfactory reasons were explained for the delay caused for lodging the complaint. He would submit that, apart from the petitioners, the 16 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 other public servants who are alleged to have abused their official positions, violated the oath of secrecy connected to their office, misused privileged information and exploited the decision making power by gross violation of the rules and guidelines, are not arrayed as accused. He further contended that, except the petitioners, no other public servant who has allegedly misused the official position or violated the laws, was arrayed in the complaint. Learned counsel also contended that, there is no allegation against Accused No.2 that he acquired land in and around the notified Inner Ring Road area. He further contended that the contents of the entire complaint does not disclose any information that Accused No.2 procured vast extent of land in and around capital region and there are no ingredients to attract any offence(s) registered in the present crime. He further contended that, as alleged by the petitioner that due to the change of alignment of Inner Ring Road, time and again caused wrongful loss to general public is only invented out of political rivalry, since the complainant belongs to party in power. Moreso, the defacto complainant invoked the criminal law after lapse of six years to harass the petitioners by falsely implicating the petitioners on account of political vendetta cannot be ruled out. But, there is no complaint or legal proceeding said to have been initiated by any aggrieved person who represented the defacto 17 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 complainant or any person who sustained alleged wrongful loss, as alleged by the defacto complainant in all these years. Except the defacto complainant, till today, no complaint is made by any aggrieved/sufferer out of the alleged change of alignment of Inner Ring Road. Moreover, this Hon‟ble Court in W.P.No.13203 of 2020 and W.P.(PIL) No.179 of 2019 dated 03.03.2022 issued continuing mandamus and directions, more particularly, for implementation of the Master Plan, including Inner Ring Road as it is, as per its final notification.
Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned counsel also submits that, for finalization of Master Plan, a public notification was issued calling objections from the public and 1085 people had submitted their objections to the notifications, but neither the complainant nor the alleged affected persons represented about violations to the complainant. Curiously they did not choose to submit any objections on any day to anyone of the authorities. Having kept quiet at the time of submission of objections, the complainant is now agitating after long gap of six years which speaks the conduct of the complainant. Moreover, the 1085 objections received were considered, replied and clarified to their satisfaction. Thereafter, a final notification of Master Plan was notified by way of publication at the official Gazettee. The said final notification/Official Gazette was not at all challenged either by the 18 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 defacto complainant or by the alleged representees of him or by any objector out of 1085 people. It became final.
It is further submitted by Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel that, the allegation of awarding on nomination basis for preparation and framing of the Master Plan for the proposed Capital City and alignment of Inner Ring Road to M/s. Surbona Jurong International Private Limited, is also not correct. As nobody turned-up after calling tenders to act as consultant, thereby a word class company in preparation of Master Plans i.e. M/s. Surbona Jurong International Private Limited of Singapore entity was selected on nomination basis. The work order was valued at Rs.14,79,66,934/-. The contents of the complaint that the petitioners herein caused wrongful gain to certain persons and entities is only imaginary, since the subject Inner Ring Road was not at all taken place and it is confined only to papers. More particularly, the formation of the said capital city as per it‟s Master Plan as well as the said Inner Ring Road was abandoned by the present administration. Therefore, the allegations that Accused No.2 caused wrongful loss to the general public and loss to public exchequer does not arise. Further, the ingredients of „cheating‟ attracting the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C are not applicable against Accused No.2.
19
NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 In view of the Bar under Section 146 of the APCRDA Act, 2014, the allegations leveled against Accused No.2 for the offences referred above in Crime No.16 if 2022 are not sustainable, as such the petitioners are entitled for bail in the event of their arrest.
Sri Posani Venkateswarulu, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the allegation against Accused No.3, that he has wrongfully gained profit of public money due to change of alignment of Inner Ring Road is not at all correct, for the reason that, he acquired the entire lands from the year 1986 upto the year 2014, which was much prior to the bifurcation of the State. On the other hand, Accused No.3 suffered loss of Ac.14-00, which are proposed under acquisition for the proposed alignment of Inner Ring Road, more over all of his lands are 4 to 10 kms away from the final Inner Ring Road alignment, as such, the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner/Accused No.3 got wrongful gain is incorrect and it is only imaginary/wishful thinking of the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner is not a public servant, as defined under Section 21 of I.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner/Accused No.3 is not at all liable for any of the offences mentioned in Crime No.16 of 2022, since the petitioner/Accused No.3 is not a public servant, thereby, Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not attract him. He further submits that the defacto complainant is the stranger to 20 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 the entire alleged sale transactions and he is not aggrieved by any of these alleged transactions. The complaint does not contain any particulars about the acquisition of lands from the public and there is no whisper about the particulars of monetary loss caused to State exchequer, since it is confined to papers only. As such, it is a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel submits that, the present complaint is only imaginary in nature and there are no ingredients to attract any offence enumerated in Crime No.16 of 2022 against the petitioner/Accused No.4, since he is a businessmen and he would not fall under the definition of „public servant‟ i.e. under Section 21 I.P.C, as such the offence enumerated under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are not applicable. He further submits that the alleged Inner Ring Road was not at all materialized and launched on ground and nothing was spent by the State for formation of Inner Ring Road and it remained on paper, thereby, there is no wrongful loss to the general public, as well as to the public exchequer, as alleged by the complainant. More so, no material was placed by the complainant or prosecution in support of their allegations.
21
NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel would contend that the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C is also not attracted, muchless there are no ingredients attracting other offences also, as narrated in the crime against the petitioner/Accused No.4. In view of the same, Accused No.4 is entitled for bail in the event of his arrest and requested to allow the criminal petition.
Finally, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the allegation against the petitioners that they caused huge loss to the public exchequer in the form of designing of master plan and change of alignment of the Inner Ring Road is false and untenable. Further, the allegations made in the complaint would not attract any of the offences referred supra, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with the above crime and in the event of their arrest, it would cause incalculable loss to their reputation in the society.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations made in the complaint would not constitute any offences and when the Court comes to a conclusion that there is no prima facie material to conclude that the petitioners did commit any offences, the petitioners 22 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 can be enlarged on bail, since arrest of the petitioners would amount to deprivation of their right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail, by exercising discretion and placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another4.
Learned Additional Advocate General representing the Special Public Prosecutor for the State filed additional material papers consisting of Preliminary Enquiry Report, Case Dairy in Crime No.16 of 2022 and Statements of L.Ws.4,5,6 & 9 under Section 161 Cr.P.C, maps relating to paper changes of alignment of Inner Ring Road and other correspondence made by the S.R.O and Tahsildar. He contended that, Commissioner, APCRDA was appointed at the whims and fancies of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 in violation of Section 21 of the APCRDA Act, 2014, who acted at the behest of Accused Nos.1 & 2 and colluded with them, thus, caused wrongful loss to the general public and public exchequer in proposing the Inner Ring Road and by changing the alignment for wrongful gain to certain chosen persons and entities connected to Accused Nos.1 & 2.
4 (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 152 23 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 It is contended that, flouting the laws, Rules and guidelines made by the Central Vigilance Commission, Accused Nos. 1 & 2 without calling tenders, awarded the entire consultancy contract work to Singapore Consultancy viz., M/s. Surbona Jurong International Private Limited on nomination basis and looted the public exchequer to an extent of Rs.14,79,66,934/-. He further contended that, the original alignment for the said Inner Ring Road was prepared on 22.07.2015, but the alignment was changed to suit their henchmen, more particularly, Accused Nos.3 to 7 on 04.04.2017 and finally on 31.10.2018 for wrongful gain to the entities and persons who were Accused Nos.3 to 7.
It is contended that, L.Ws.6 & 7 specifically stated that, as per the instructions of the then Minister, Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Vice-Chairman, APCRDA/Accused No.2 and the Commissioner, APCRDA, the above options of Inner Ring Road were worked out. L.W.9 stated that there is a huge variation in Inner Ring Road alignment between center line of IRR submitted by STUP consultants dated 24.12.2016 with that of Right of Way of IRR submitted on 04.04.2017.
It is further contended that, in view of the specific statements made by the L.Ws, the said change of alignments were made as per the 24 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 instructions of Accused No.2 only. Therefore, Accused No.2 misused the official position, being the Vice-Chairman of APCRDA and Minister for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,apart from the other offences mentioned in the First Information Report for causing wrongful loss to the public at large and public exchequer.
The learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh would finally contend that the petitioners being the public servants abused their official positions, violated the oath of secrecy connected to their office and misused privileged information, thus exploited the decision making power. It is also submitted that the petitioners avoided to disclose the financial interests involved in the decisions taken, thus, caused wrongful gain to certain chosen persons and entities connected to the decision, which resulted in wrongful loss to the public at large and public exchequer. It is further contended that the allegations made in the complaint on its face value would constitute offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 420, 34,35,36,37,166,167 and 217 of I.P.C against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5. Investigation is still pending and in progress and final report is to be 25 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 filed. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest and requested to dismiss the criminal petitions.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
Before going into the real controversy between the parties, it is apposite to deal with the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
The power of the Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C is purely discretionary and this Court has to exercise its power judiciously based on settled principles. But, the circumstances to exercise such jurisdiction may vary from case to case. The law regarding grant of anticipatory bail is elaborately discussed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and ors v. State of Punjab5, as the power of granting 'anticipatory bail' is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated, or a frivolous case might be launched against him, or "there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail" that such power is to be exercised. No 5 AIR 1980 SC 1632 26 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 hard and fast rule can be laid down in discretionary matters like grant or refusal of bail whether anticipatory or regular bail. The Apex Court further held that, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. Therefore, anticipatory bail can be granted even in serious cases like economic offences and States should have no concern for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail, as there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit 27 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 it. Therefore, while dealing with the application for grant of pre-arrest bail or anticipatory bail, the Court must take into consideration the guidelines issued in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia case. Though, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, even in economic offences, the Court can grant anticipatory bail, subject to satisfaction of other grounds.
A good deal of misunderstanding with regard to the ambit and scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. could have been avoided in case the Constitution Bench decision of this court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia case (supra) was correctly understood, appreciated and applied. The Hon‟ble Apex Court laid down the following principles with regard to anticipatory bail:
a) Section 438(1) is to be interpreted in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
b) Filing of FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise of power under section 438.
c) Order under section 438 would not affect the right of police to conduct investigation.
d) Conditions mentioned in section 437 cannot be read into section 438.28
NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022
e) Although the power to release on anticipatory bail can be described as of an "extraordinary" character this would "not justify the conclusion that the power must be exercised in exceptional cases only." Powers are discretionary to be exercised in light of the circumstances of each case.
f) Initial order can be passed without notice to the Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, notice must be issued forthwith and question ought to be re- examined after hearing. Such ad interim order must conform to requirements of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant.
For grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, certain principles have been laid down by the Apex Court and the Courts are bound to follow the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Maharashtra6 case. The Apex Court only reiterated the 10 guidelines laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra7 which are as follows:
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;6
2016 (1) ALT (CRL. ) 122 (S. C) 7 AIR 2011 SC 312 29 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
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.
(Emphasis supplied) In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra8, by following the judgment in the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (referred supra), laid down parameters for exercise of discretion of anticipatory bail having regard to the fundamental right of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the needs of the society where such liberty may be required to be taken away. It was 8 (2018) 6 SCC 454 30 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 observed that, All human beings are born with some unalienable rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The importance of these natural rights can be found in the fact that these are fundamental for their proper existence and no other right can be enjoyed without the presence of right to life and liberty. Life bereft of liberty would be without honour and dignity and it would lose all significance and meaning and the life itself would not be worth living. That is why "liberty" is called the very quintessence of a civilised existence. The fundamental rights represent the basic values enriched by the people of this country. The aim behind having elementary right of the individual such as the Right to Life and Liberty is not fulfilled as desired by the Framers of the Constitution. It is to preserve and protect certain basic human rights against interference by the State. The inclusion of a chapter in the Constitution is in accordance with the trends of modern democratic thought. The object is to ensure the inviolability of certain essential rights against political vicissitudes. Life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual. The inner urge for freedom is a natural phenomenon of every human being. Respect for life, liberty and property is not merely a norm or a policy of the State but an essential requirement of any civilised society. The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty in any 31 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 manner. Article 21 is repository of all human rights essential for a person or a citizen. A fruitful and meaningful life presupposes life full of dignity, honour, health and welfare. In the modern "Welfare Philosophy", it is for the State to ensure these essentials of life to all its citizens, and if possible to non-citizens. While invoking the provisions of Article 21, and by referring to the oftquoted statement of Joseph Addison, "Better to die ten thousand deaths than wound my honour", the Apex Court in Khedat Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v. State of M.P9 posed to itself a question "If dignity or honour vanishes what remains of life?" This is the significance of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India in its Third Part.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 says: " Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Article 9 provides that, No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Article 10 says that, "10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
According to the Report of the National Police Commission, when the power of arrest is grossly abused and clearly violates the personal 9 (1994) 6 SCC 260 32 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 liberty of the people, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the courts need to take serious notice of it. When conviction rate is admittedly less than 10%, then the police should be slow in arresting the accused. The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-à-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court.
The gravity of charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the court.
It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case.
33
NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre- conviction stage or post-conviction stage.
However, the law regarding grant of anticipatory bail is elaborately discussed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab (referred supra), as the power of granting 'anticipatory bail' is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated, or a frivolous case might be launched against him, or "there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail" that such power is to be exercised. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in discretionary matters like grant or refusal of bail whether anticipatory or regular bail. The Apex Court further held that, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined 34 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. Therefore, anticipatory bail can be granted even in serious cases like economic offences and States should have no concern for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail, as there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more, there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it. Therefore, while dealing with the application for grant of pre-arrest bail or anticipatory bail, the Court must take into consideration the guidelines issued in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia2 case.
Section 438 Cr.P.C deals with direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest and it reads that (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or 35 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 the Court of Session for direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required: (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar10, the Supreme Court held that Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been en-roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. The Courts are expected to deal with very serious matters seriously, but not in casual and cavalier manner and grant of 10 AIR 2012 SC 1676 36 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 anticipatory bail by extending unwarranted sympathy towards accused by exercising discretion. Court might not exercise its discretion in derogation of established principles of law, rather it had to be in strict adherence to them. Discretion had to be guided by law, duly governed by rule and could not be arbitrary, fanciful or vague and Court must not yield to spasmodic sentiment to unregulated benevolence. Any order de-hors grounds provided in Section 438 of Cr.P.C is illegal.
When the power of arrest is grossly abused and clearly violates the personal liberty of the people, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Courts need to take serious note of it. The Courts considering the bail application(s) should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-à-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court.
A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those 37 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the principles laid down in the above judgments, the basic requirement to grant pre-arrest bail is that there must be a tangible material in support of the apprehension of the arrest of the petitioners/A-2 to 5 and that the Court has to record its prima facie satisfaction that there is no evidence to conclude that the petitioners committed. In the present case, except the allegation that the petitioners have committed certain illegal and corrupt activities in respect of design of master plan and there is no specific allegation about participation of the accused either directly or indirectly.
In view of the guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre case (referred supra), the Court should consider cases where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated, the Court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels for all the petitioners and also the learned Additional 38 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 Advocate General for the State.
The substance of the allegations as enumerated in the First Information Report primarily show that the representees claiming as residents of villages situated in the capital city area and Capital Region Development Authority Area, expressed their grievance that, in view of the change of alignment of the Inner Ring Road caused wrongful loss to the general public and state exchequer and to do wrongful gain to certain chosen persons and entities of Accused No.2 in contravention of the procedure established under law. So, the allegations pertain to the alleged contravention of Section 21 of the A.P.C.R.D.A Act, 2014, in respect of appointment of Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer.
The other allegation that, awarding on nomination basis for preparation and framing of the Master Plan for the proposed Capital City and alignment of Inner Ring Road to M/s. Surbona Jurong International Private Limited is in contravention to guidelines of Central Vigilance Commission. "The alleged contravention of the procedure under the Act and circulars of Central Vigilance Commission amounts to any offence as alleged". In this context, it is relevant to narrate that there is neither acquisition of any piece of land nor parted single pie either by the first respondent or by the A.P.C.R.D.A for execution of alleged change of alignment of Inner Ring Road. More so, the entire 39 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 exercise is confined to paper and entire development was abandoned by the present administration. Moreover, till now, the alleged representees to the defacto complainant or any other aggrieved person due to change of alleged alignment of Inner Ring Road did not raise any demand whatsoever in this regard. They did not challenge the final notification of Master Plan, especially alignment of Inner Ring Road in any Court of Law. They also did not lodge any report with the police in all the length of six years.
Now, after lapse of about six years, according to the prosecution version, they approached the defacto complainant, who is an M.L.A in the present ruling party, expressing grievance in this regard and he lodged the present report with the police on the basis of alleged grievance said to have been expressed before him by the representees. The genuineness of the said F.I.R which is now lodged by the M.L.A is mainly questioned by the petitioners on the ground that he lodged the said report with the police against the petitioners, to wreak their political vengeance out of malice against the petitioners. The Courts finds considerable force in the above contention raised by the petitioners. The representees did not lodge any report with the police for all this length of six years period even till today, but the present complaint came to be lodged by the defacto complainant, who is an 40 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 M.L.A of the present party in power.
In this context, it is relevant to note the very recent and latest judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra11. The Apex Court held, while considering human liberty vis-à-vis public interest, that no doubt public interest requires, that there should be a fair and due investigation of crime. However, at the other end of the spectrum, it is also the duty of the Court to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum. Further held that, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter which the High Courts and lower Courts must be alive to. Therefore, in the light of the law enunciated by the Apex Court explaining the duty of the Court while considering a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the Court must make an endeavour to ensure that criminal law does not become a weapon of harassment of citizens and the same is not misused, the aforesaid defence taken by the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of the political vendetta cannot be ruled out. Certainly, it is a fact to be considered in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
11
(2021) 2 SCC 427 41 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 Further, as can be seen from the contents of the F.I.R and also the preliminary investigation report, prima facie no specific role is attributed to the petitioners herein in contravening the said procedure or in committing any such offences for which the F.I.R is registered. Apart from it, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, it is significant to note that Section 146 of the A.P.C.R.D.A Act, 2014, imposes a specific bar to prosecute any officer, authority or a person for the acts done or acts purported to have been done under the said Act, are in pursuance of the said Act. For better appreciation, Section 146 of the A.P.C.R.D.A Act, 2014, is reproduced hereunder:
"S.146. Bar of Legal Proceeding:- No suit, prosecution or the proceeding shall lie against the Government or Authority or officer or person for any act done or purporting to be done under or in pursuance of the Act or the rules or standing orders made thereunder."
Therefore, a bare perusal of the aforesaid Section makes it manifest that no prosecution shall lie against the Government or authority or officer or even any person for any act done or purported to have been done under the Act or in pursuance of the said Act or the Rules or the Standing Orders made thereunder.
Moreover, the facts of the case clearly show that the alleged acts complained against the petitioners pertain to the acts done in pursuance of the A.P.C.R.D.A Act, 2014. Therefore, this Court is of the 42 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 considered view that prima facie, the aforesaid bar under Section 146 of the A.P.C.R.D.A Act clearly applies to the present facts of the case. Although the learned Additional Advocate General made his best efforts to convince the Court that the said bar applies only when the acts are done in good faith and not otherwise, the learned Senior Counsel Sri Dammalapati Srinivas would contend that there is nothing in the said Section to indicate that the said protection from the prosecution is applicable only to the acts done in good faith. Even otherwise, he would submit that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners have not done the said acts in good faith. Therefore, prima facie, in view of the express bar engrafted under Section 146 of the A.P.C.R.D.A Act, 2014, ultimately, if it is found that the bar applies to the present facts of the case, it goes to the very root of the matter and strikes at its bottom regarding the very maintainability of the prosecution against the petitioners.
The State seeks to prosecute the petitioners, mainly on the ground of alleged violation of procedure in appointing Commissioner/C.A.O., A.P.C.R.D.A, another important aspect which needs examination is, whether mere violation of circular of Central Vigilance Commission in appointing consultant M/s. Surbona Jurong International Private Limited would constitute any offence without there 43 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 being any requisite mens rea or guilty intention on the part of the concerned, which is the basic principle of our criminal jurisprudence. At this stage, there is no reliable material on record to hold that the said acts are violating the Rules and the same would not constitute any offences.
In the present case, there is nothing to establish the role played by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 and entire exercise remained in papers only, except alleging that A-2 to A-5 conspired together in the alignment of the inner ring road and designed master plan and caused wrongful gain to the chosen entities. Such an allegation is not sufficient to rope the petitioners with a serious offence(s). Apart from that, the defacto complainant is a Member of Legislative Assembly from the present government and the some of the petitioners are Ex-Ministers, whereby, political rivalry cannot be ruled out.
Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.16 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 420, 34,35,36,37,166,167 and 217 of I.P.C on the file of Station House Officer, CID PS, A.P., Amaravathi, Mangalagiri.
44
NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 In the result, the criminal petitions are allowed directing the Station House Officer, CID PS, A.P., Amaravathi, Mangalagiri to release the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the above crime on executing personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, CID PS, A.P., Amaravathi, Mangalagiri and on further condition that the petitioners shall stay within India and shall not leave the Country without prior permission of the Court till the date of filing charge-sheet.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.
______________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA Date:06.09.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked b/o SP 45 NV,J Crl.P.Nos.3811, 3833, 3834 and 3835 of 2022 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA (pre-delivered judgment in ) CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.3811, 3833, 3834 AND 3835 of 2022 Date: 06.09.2022 W Note: LR copy SP