Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bohararam Dillip vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 August, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6100 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟), seeking anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/A3 in Cr.No.12 of 2022 of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 411, 413 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short „IPC‟).
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.01.2022, the defacto complainant boarded a private bus at Amarajyothi Kalyanamandapam bus stop by taking traveler bag in which she kept her gold jewels and when the bus reached Puttur Marati Gate, the defacto complainant and her family got down the bus for nature calls, one woman approached her and enquired in Tamil language about the toilet. It is further alleged that the defacto complainat kept her luggage nearby her and at about 5.20 p.m., they got down the bus in G.R.Kuppam road and went to their house. It is further alleged that on 10.01.2022, when she opened the travel bag and noticed that her belongings were not found place, as such on 15.01.2022, she approached the police and lodged the report. Basing on the report lodged by the defacto complainant, the Station House Officer, Nagari Urban police station initially registered the said crime against the unknown offenders under Section 379 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the 2 investigating officer has arrested A1 and A2. Basing on the confession of A1 and A2, the petitioner was arrayed as A3.
3. Heard Sri S. Varadharajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds, contends that, basing on the confession statement of Accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner was roped into this crime as Accused No.3. He further contended that the petitioner is an engineering student and never involved in this offence, he is falsely implicated in this crime. It is further contended that petitioner has already preferred a bail application vide bearing Crl.M.P.No. 383 of 2022 which was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the specific allegations were made against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the "Dilip Pawn Broker Shop" is in the name of the petitioner‟s father and to the said effect the membership form is also placed on record and the business being run by him. It is further submitted that in the event of his arrest, his reputation in the family and in his career will be affected. Hence, prays this Court to consider this application.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that though the petitioner was implicated basing on the confessional statements of A1 and A2, there are allegations against the petitioner and the presence of A3 is essential for the purpose of investigation. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, 3 he may hamper the process of investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
6. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar1, while dealing with the confessional statements made by the accused persons before a police officer, the Supreme Court held as under:
"7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started."
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, material available on record and the submissions made by both the learned counsel and as the petitioner name is not reflected in the original FIR and as he has been implicated based on confession statement and as the business of "Dilip Pawn Broker Shop" is in the name of petitioner‟s father and as there are no 1 (1998) 8 SCC 130 4 antecedents against the petitioner and by taking the referred citation into consideration, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ A3, however the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing the following conditions.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.12 of 2022 of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, on the petitioner executing a self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 12.00 noon, till filing of charge sheet.
(iii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate proper investigation in this case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact any witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation.
5
Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 23.08.2022 AG 6 66 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6100 OF 2022 Date : 23.08.2022 AG