Chavatapalli Dharma Raju vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others

K.Suresh Reddy, J

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437(2) and 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner-defacto complainant in Cr.No.162 of 2023 of Pedavegi Police Station, seeking to cancel the Anticipatory bail granted by this court to the respondents herein/Accused Nos.1 to 17, vide Order, dated, 11-05-2023, passed in Crl.P.No.3355 of 2023.

At the outset, basing on the complaint of the petitioner/ defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.162 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections.323, 324, 341,307,354 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered against the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 17.

Later, the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 17 had filed Crl.P.No.3355 of 2023 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before this court seeking Anticipatory bail to them. This court upon hearing both sides, has granted Anticipatory bail to the respondents by an order, dated 11-05-2023.

Now, the petitioner/defacto complainant has filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to cancel the Anticipatory bail granted to the respondents herein.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant is that under the guise of the Anticipatory bail, the respondents herein are threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant is that the respondents herein are trying to influence the witnesses in this case. As such, he requests this court to cancel the bail granted to the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 17.

Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 17 contends that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. In fact, as on the date of alleged incident, an altercation took place between the petitioner and the respondents in respect of the land property and in that connection, the petitioner herein has given a false complaint against the respondents. More over, the respondents herein are obeying the condition imposed by this court regularly. He, therefore, requests this court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that investigation in this case has almost been completed and as many as eight witnesses were examined. Further, the respondents herein are complying the condition imposed by this court regularly.

This court perused the entire material available on record. Needless to mention that cancellation of bail would necessarily involve the review of a decision already made. Further, it has been emphasized that the same should always be exercised very sparingly by the court of law. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has identified and listed out a list of circumstances in the nature of being supervening circumstances, which could warrant an order from this court to cancel the bail. In Abdul Basit vs.Mohd Abdul Kadir Chaudhary [ reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has listed out the following grounds for cancellation of bail.

The accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity;

Interferes with the course of investigation;

Attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses;

Threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation;

There is likelihood of his/her fleeing to another country;

Attempts to make himself/herself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency.

Attempts to place himself/herself beyond the reach of his/her surety.

The Apex Court, while listing out the above grounds for cancellation bail, has clearly asserted that the grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. Further, it is pertinent to mention hereunder that the above list has been relied upon by the Law Commission of Indian also in its 268th Report as well.

Now, coming to the facts of the present Criminal Petition, except stating that the respondents herein are threatening the petitioner with dire consequences, no evidence or proof is put forth by the petitioner. Moreover, this court while relying on the fact that civil disputes cropped up between both the parties, has granted Anticipatory bail to the respondents herein. Further, as per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation in this case has almost been completed and charge sheet is going to be filed. In that view of the matter, this court discernable that there are no merits in the present Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.