ASHIREDDYGARI NARASIMHAREDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners two in number who are charged for offences punishable under Sections 34, and 307, IPC filed this application under Sections 437 and 439, Cr. P.C. to enlarge them on bail in Cr. No. 95 of 1996 (P.R.C. No. 37/1997) on the file of Station House Officer, Hasthnura, Medak District and to pass such order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem it proper.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this Case are that the Station House Officer, Hasthnura registered Cr. No. 95 of 1996 against the petitioners under Sections 34 and 307 of IPC on 23-10-1996. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl. P. No. 5288 of 1996 on the file of this Court under Section 438, Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in the said crime. This Court by order dated 16-12-1996 directed that the petitioners be released on bail in the event of their arrest of each of them executing a bond of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety of like amount for a period of one month from the date of their arrest to the satisfaction of the aforesaid order. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners appeared along with sureties before the police and executed the sureties. Thereafter, on 6-10-1997 the SHO filed charge-sheet and the same was numbered as PRC 37/97. On the date of filing of the charge-sheet both the accused were present. The docket order of the Magistrate dated 6-10-1997 is as follows A-1 and A-2 present. Copies of documents furnished for committal call on 3-11-1997." Thereafter, the case underwent some adjournments and at the stage of committal of the case to the Session the Magistrate having found that the petitioner did not obtain regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed, directed them to approach the Sessions Court and obtain regular bail. On that the petitioners filed Crl. M.P. No. 490 of 1999 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Medak and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court on 9-4-1999 by holding that application for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained as the accused are not in detention or in custody of any of the authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the present application is filed.

(3.) On 4-5-1999 I directed the continuance of the petitioner on anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions on which anticipatory bail was granted by this Court on 16-12-1996 until further orders and directed the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor to examine the legal position and assist the Court to arrive at a proper conclusion. In this petition the correctness of the order passed by the Sessions Court is canvassed and as there is no decided case on this aspect this Court requested Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Senior, Counsel to assist the Court for arriving at a just conclusion. Section 438, Cr.P.C. deals with the grant of anticipatory bail . In the first instance Sri Padmanabha Reddy contended that the Court is not justified in granting bail for a limited period by relying on a Larger Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri LJ 1125 : (AIR 1980 SC 1632). It is true that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this case held that "Normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time". But, two Smaller Benches of the Supreme Court at a latter point of time i.e., one in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaik v. State of Maharashtra , 1996 SCC (Cri) 198 : (1996 Cri LJ 1368) and K.L. Varma v. State , (1996) 7 Scale (SP) 20 without reference to the earlier judgment of the Larger Bench has taken a different view. Left to myself, I would have followed the Judgment of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh's case supra. But my learned Brother Justice Sudershan Reddy in C.H. Siva Prasad v. State of A.P., (1998) 2 Andh LD (Cri) 498 : (1999 Cri LJ 1263) having considered the effect of these three judgments as well as some other judgments of the other High Courts recorded a finding that it is for the Court granting anticipatory bail whether to limit the operation of the anticipatory bail to a particular period or without specifying any period. The conclusion arrived at by my brother are as hereunder : 22. On an analysis and a close reading of the decisions referred to above, the following propositions would emerge :