AMITHAB BAGCHI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.28 seeking to quash the impugned order dtd. 22/7/2024 passed by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter referred as the 'learned Sessions Judge') in CRL.M.P.No.128 of 2024 in P.R.C.No.69 of 2019 in Crime No.1 of 2008 of Karimnagar Rural Police Station, wherein the application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to cancel the bail against the petitioner, was allowed and the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.

(2.) Heard Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Jabali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

(3.) (a). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.28 was produced in Crime No.1 of 2008 on 1/2/2010 and since then he has been in judicial custody. On 19/10/2010 the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar granted default bail to the petitioner but he could not furnish sureties, subsequently, charge sheet was filed and numbered as PRC No.69 of 2019 and on bail application filed by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge vide orders dtd. 30/1/2014 granted bail to the petitioner. The prosecution has filed an application seeking cancellation of bail vide CRL.M.P.No.128 of 2014 before the learned Sessions Judge, prior to the furnishing of sureties by the petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge erroneously allowed the same and cancelled the bail of the petitioner vide impugned order. It is further submitted that there are no new circumstances brought before the learned Sessions Judge and there is no violation of any conditions of the bail order as the petitioner-accused No.28 still remained in the judicial custody. Exercise of power under Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the same Court which granted bail, without the presence of any new circumstances or the violation of any of the conditions imposed, would be gross violation of Sec. 362 of the Code.