STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. PRAKASH KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Filing of suit Certified Copy of Judgment in Crl.M.P. No.1313/98, dated 7-9-1998 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada - Dispensed with.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The accused was grantedbail by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada on 11-9-1998. While granting bail, he directed that the accused shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 50,000.00 with two local sureties for like amount. An application has been made under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking modification of these conditions. During the pendency of this application, the learned Public Prosecutor also moved an application seeking cancellation of the bail granted by-the learned Sessions Judge on 11-9-1998. This is a matter concerning theft of a Crown of a temple which is sensitive in its nature. Besides, the Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner belongs to Madhya Pradesh and he is an habitual offender and is accused of having committed offences in various parts of the State. He also states that not only in the State of Andhra Pradesh but in various other States the accused has committed offences. Therefore, the bail granted to him should be cancelled. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra and submits that the question of cancellation of bail would only arise when the accused is released from custody. At present, he has not been released as he has not been able to give local sureties in the amount of Rs. 50,000.00. Therefore, the question of cancellation of bail would not arise. He further states that the Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Moti Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh that Courts should not insist on local sureties and in certain matters the insistence on local sureties would virtually mean the refusal of bail. In the present case also although the order granting bail has been passed on 11-9-1998, the accused has not been able to ripe its fruit only because the Court insisted on local sureties. In these circumstances, this Court has no option but to modify the order dated 11-9-1998. Accordingly, this order is modified to the extent that the accused shall give a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the V M.M., Vijayawada. The learned Public Prosecutor further stated that in the past also the accused has tried to give false sureties. Therefore, it should be ensured before he is released on bail that genuine sureties are produced before the Court. This is a matter which I believe and trust that the satisfying Court will ensure before attesting the bail and surety bonds.

(3.) With the above observations, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of.