AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused Officer on bail in FIR No.09/RCA-KUR/2026 of ACB, Kurnool Range, Kurnool District, registered against the petitioner/Accused Officer herein for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the P.C. Act’).
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB. Perused the record.
As seen from the record, the petitioner was arrested in FIR No.09/RCA-KUR/2026 of ACB, Kurnool Range, Kurnool District, by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 67 days. So far, only ten witnesses have been examined and the charge sheet has not yet been filed.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam1, wherein, at paragraph No.40, it was held as under:
40.“…In any event, this issue was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the High Court. The High Court did not reject the submission on the ground of maintainability but on merits. Therefore it is not as if the petitioner did not make not in writing) then at least orally before the High Court. In our opinion, in matters of personal liberty, we cannot and should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty. Consequently, whether the accused makes a written application for "default bail" or an oral application for "default bail" is of no consequence…”
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon paragraph No.47 of the said judgment, wherein it was held as under:
47.Consequently, we are of the opinion that the petitioner had satisfied all the requirements of obtaining "default bail" which is that on 11-1-2017 he had put in more than 60 days in custody pending investigations into an alleged offence not punishable with imprisonment for a minimum period of 10 years, c no charge-sheet had been filed against him and he was prepared to furnish bail for his release, as such, he ought to have been released by the High Court on reasonable terms and conditions of bail.
The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, held that the accused becomes entitled to default bail upon completion of the statutory period of detention, subject to the requirements of law. It was further observed that there is no requirement that the accused must necessarily make a written application for default bail and that an oral application would also suffice.
However, the learned Magistrate is required to verify whether the accused has remained in judicial custody beyond the statutory period. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation2, at paragraph No.100, has also issued certain guidelines to the Sessions Judges and Magistrates conducting trials to visit jails frequently and ascertain from the Superintendent of the Jail whether any undertrial prisoner has remained in judicial custody beyond the statutory period.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul supra has also, in categorical terms, observed that, in matters relating to personal liberty, one cannot and should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty. It is further held that whether the accused makes a written application or an oral application is also not consequential.
Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the period of incarceration in judicial custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused Officer on bail, subject to stringent conditions.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:
The petitioner/Accused Officer shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Kurnool.
The petitioner/Accused Officer shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m., till the filing of the charge sheet.
The petitioner/Accused Officer shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.
The petitioner/Accused Officer shall not commit or indulge in the commission of any offence while on bail.
The petitioner/Accused Officer shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.
The petitioner/Accused Officer shall furnish all material particulars and the required documents as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer.
The petitioner/Accused Officer and his sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned police and shall keep the police informed of any change in their addresses from time to time.
The Petitioner/Accused Officer shall surrender his passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.