CHIGULURI KRISHNA RAO PRESIDENT BEZAWADA BAR ASSOCIATION VIJAYWADA Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER II TWON POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was taken up on a letter by The Bezwada Bar Association in which it was alleged that one Sri. P. Sai Babu, an Advocate, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Section 332 of I.P.C. It appears that there was some incident involving the members of the Bar and the Police, where there were allegations and counter-allegations. After said Sri. Sai Babu was arrested, it was alleged that The Bezwada Bar Association President and members went to the Police Station offered bail, but the Police Officer concerned refused to grant bail. Later, Sri Sai Babu was produced before First Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. There also, the President and members of the Bar offered surety, but the Magistrate also did not grant him bail, although the offence was bailable.

(2.) The Court took notice of the letter and a writ petition was registered. An order was passed by this Court on 28.6.2005, asking for an explanation from the Magistrate concerned and also asking the Station House Officer concerned to file the counteraffidavit.

(3.) The Magistrate's explanation was received, who stated in his explanation that the detenu was brought before him on 11.6.2005 at 4 a.m., at his residence for the purpose of remand. He perused the papers. An F.I.R. had been registered in Crime No.115 of 2005 under Section 332 of I.P.C. He ordered the Police concerned to produce the accused on the next working day. He further submitted that it was an odd hour when the detenu was produced before him and 11th and 12th June, 2005 were holidays and the next working day was 13th June, 2005, and as per usual practice in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, he directed production of accused on immediate next working day. He further submitted that there were no facilities and there was no infrastructure at his residence and even if he had ordered bail, there was nobody to prepare bail bonds after verification of solvencies. He denied that surety had been offered by the President and members of the Bar at his residence. The Advocates met him only after the Police had taken away the detenu. He had also drawn the attention of the Court to a judgment in Dr. P.C. Kakar v. D.G.P., A.P., Hyderabad, 1986 (1) APLJ 203, in which the Government was directed to provide necessary facilities to all the Magistrates in the State to dispose of the bail applications presented at their residences outside office hours or holidays and to pass orders to remand the accused to Judicial custody.