Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Challa Nuka Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 May, 2024
1
APHC010156582024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2225/2024
Between:
Challa Nuka Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 438 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/A5, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.47 of 2024 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.
2. A case has been registered registered against the Petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 489(A), 489(B) and 489(C) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
3. The Prosecution's case, in brief, is that, on 17.02.2024, at approximately 10:15 A.M., following the receipt of credible information 2 regarding the illegal possession and manufacturing of counterfeit currency notes at D.No.19-9-17/1, Ratnampeta, Ramachandrapuram Town and Mandal, the Sub-Inspector of Police, accompanied by his staff and mediators, promptly rushed to the scene of offence. Upon arrival, they apprehended the individuals and identified as A1 to A4, who were reportedly engaged in the illicit manufacturing of counterfeit currency notes. A.1 to A.4 were allegedly found in the possession of equipment including a laptop, printer, pendrive, cutter, and other materials used in the manufacturing process of counterfeit currency notes. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police conducted a seizure of the counterfeit currency amounting to Rs.60,000 from A1 to A4, as detailed in the mediators report, and proceeded to arrest them. The properties associated with the illegal activity were confiscated in the presence of mediators, leading to the registration of a case pertaining to the aforementioned crime based on the mediators' report.
4. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner has been implicated as A.5 solely based on confessional statements of A.1 to A.4. Apart from these confessional statements, no additional evidence has been collected to establish the Petitioner's involvement (as A.5) in the commission of the offence.
5. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has presented a document indicating the Petitioner's involvement in eight similar crimes, suggesting a pattern of habitual offending. Additionally, the Assistant Public Prosecutor emphasized that the police have not filed a charge sheet yet, 3 indicating that the investigation is still ongoing and potentially at a critical stage. Based on these factors, the Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the granting of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the report.
7. In Mahipal V. Rajesh1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime.
8. The anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that the Petitioner is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted. The necessity for custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the accusations. Denying custodial interrogation could result in significant loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation, adversely affecting its integrity.
9. In Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
1
(2020) 2 SCC 118 2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 4 "Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty".
10. In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answers upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict".
11. In light of the legal position outlined above, I will now analyze the specific facts of the case to determine the Petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail.
12. As seen from the record, it's evident that on 17.02.2024, around 07:00 AM, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram P.S., acting upon credible information regarding the illegal possession and manufacturing of counterfeit currency notes, led his team to a terraced house located at D.N.19- 9-17/1, Old Post Office Street, Ratnampeta, Ramachandrapuram Town. There, they apprehended A.1 to A.4 and confiscated the counterfeit currency notes valued at Rs.60,000/-. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, based on the confessional statements of A.1 to A.4 recorded in the mediators report by the Police, the case was registered against the Petitioner (A.5).
13. It is the Prosecution's case that A.1 to A.4 and the absconding accused i.e., Petitioner/A.5 and A.6 are close associates and indulged in manufacturing and circulating of counterfeit currency notes to others and gaining wrongful gains from them; A.2 is the helper to Petitioner/A.5 and transporting 3 (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565 5 counterfeit currency notes to A.3 and A.4 in the crowdy places by obtaining from A.1 as well as from Petitioner/A.5; subsequently, by obtaining counterfeit currency notes from A.1 and Petitioner/A.5, the other Accused used to circulate the counterfeit currency in the crowdy places as genuine and obtaining commission to that effect; the Petitioner/A.5 used to manufacture counterfeit currency notes with the help of A.6 and doing the illicit business through A.1 to A.4; Petitioner purchased the counterfeit currency printing equipment at Vijayawada through A.2 and A.6 and sent them to the A.1's rented house; which is situated at D.No.19-9-17/1, old Post office street, Ratnampeta, Ramachandrapuram Town, with a plan to manufacture the forged notes in that house; as per the sequel of their plan, during the Pongal festival 2024, all the Accused manufactured the counterfeit currency notes through A.6 in the A.1's rented house and circulate them in the crowdy places and thereby earned wrongful profits through illicit means and enjoyed that commission money for their lavishness
14. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner argues that there is a lack of independent evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's participation in the commission of the offence. Conversely, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the Petitioner has a history of habitual offending and cites his involvement in the following cases in a tabular form:
S.No. Crime Number Offence & Name of the Police Station U/sec.379 of IPC of Bheemunipatnam P.S., 1. Cr.No.337 of 2004 Visakhapatnam
2. Cr.No.02/2006 U/sec.489 of IPC of Parvathipuram Town P.S. 6
3. Cr.No.555/2009 U/sec.420, 489B, 489C of IPC of Saluru Town P.S., U/sec.489E, 489C, 489B of IPC of Saluru Town 4. Cr.No.45/2010 P.S., U/sec.489E, 489C, 489B of IPC of Saluru Town 5. Cr.No.49/2010 P.S., U/sec.489E, 489C, 489B of IPC of Saluru Town 6. Cr.No.77/2010 P.S., U/sec.489E, 489C, 489B of IPC of Saluru Town 7. Cr.No.95/2010 P.S., U/sec.120B, 420 of IPC of Airport P.S., 8. Cr.No.230/22016 Visakhapatnam
9. Cr.No.137/2019 U/sec.489A, 489B, 420 of IPC of GRP Vijayawada.
15. As per the Prosecution's case, the Petitioner (A.5) played a significant role in the manufacturing of counterfeit currency utilizing advanced printing technology and consistently supplied the fake currency to other co-accused individuals. The material placed by the Prosecution prima facie demonstrates the Petitioner's involvement in offences of a similar nature.
16. It is noted that the co-accused have been arrested and they have made specific allegations against the Petitioner in their confessional statements. It is relevant to note that the statements of the co-accused are to be tested at the time of trial. No reason has also been pleaded as to why the co-accused would try to falsely implicate the Petitioner.
17. It is erroneous to say that confessional statement made by the accused during interrogation cannot be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused. Such disclosure statement of co-accused can certainly be taken 7 into consideration for providing lead in investigation and even during trial it is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
18. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
19. Regarding the Prosecution's case, the investigation remains incomplete. The anticipatory bail for the Petitioner may adversely impact the ongoing investigation. There is a possibility of threats to the witnesses, and a prima facie case involving the Petitioner in a severe case exists. The nature of the accusations is grave. The investigation agency has not been able to interrogate the Accused/Petitioner. Custodial interrogation is deemed necessary to extract all material information about the offence. The established legal principle is that anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of rule; it should only be granted when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy.
20. When an investigation by the police is in progress, the Courts should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR and mediators report. On the contrary, the police must be permitted to complete the investigation. The test of a prima facie or probable case is only required to be shown at the time of framing of charge; however, for an investigation to proceed on the basis of a First Information Report, all that is required to be shown is that the contents 8 of the complaint/First Information Report/confessional statement, when taken at face value, make out an offence. The material placed on the record, in the present case, does contain definite particulars making out the offences complained of.
21. In a case containing serious allegations, the Investigating Officer deserves free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that the investigation officer who has been prevented from subjecting the Petitioner to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out prima facie substance in the allegations which are of extreme serious in nature. Possibility of the investigation getting effected, once the Petitioner is released on bail is very much foreseen. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking an anticipatory bail.
22. The custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the allegations made against the Petitioner. Denying custodial interrogation could result in significant loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation, adversely affecting its integrity. The contention that the Petitioner's role is not mentioned in the F.I.R., does not undermine the Prosecution's case. The grant of anticipatory at the investigation stage may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting helpful information and the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation will elude if the suspected 9 person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order when he is interrogated.
23. Considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, as also the settled principle of law that power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances and thus, no such circumstances being having been made out in this case, this Court does not find it a proper case for granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused.
24. Needless to say, any observations made herein above are only to decide these applications. The main case will be decided on merits by the learned trial Court without getting influenced by any such observations made in the present order.
25. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 01.05.2024 SDP / SAK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2225/2024 Date: 01.05.2024 SAK