27 Feb 2022 2:52 PM GMT
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the bail granted cannot be cancelled under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure if there are vague allegations against the accused without any substantive proof. Brief facts of the Case The criminal petition was filed under Section 439(2), CrPC to cancel the bail that was granted to the accused. It is a case of...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the bail granted cannot be cancelled under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure if there are vague allegations against the accused without any substantive proof.
Brief facts of the Case
The criminal petition was filed under Section 439(2), CrPC to cancel the bail that was granted to the accused. It is a case of double murder.
The wife of one of the deceased filed the petition for cancellation of the said bail that was granted to the accused in the above crime on the ground that there were no changes of circumstances for grant of bail after the dismissal of two earlier bail applications. Furthermore, she alleged that the accused through their men have been threatening the witnesses and interfering with the process of investigation and making an attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence.
The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that a condition was imposed that the accused would not enter the village and the accused had been complying with the said condition. He also submitted that the entire investigation was completed and about 48 witnesses had been examined and only forensic science report is awaited to file the charge sheet.
The court in the present matter observed that in the third bail application which was allowed, the Additional Sessions Judge had noted that some police personnel was deployed in the village as there was threat to the family members of the accused and he further held that since material witnesses were examined, there would be no chance to the accused to interfere with the investigation. On the basis of the stage of investigation, the bail was granted to the accused.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy relied on Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, 1986 where the illustrative instances of when bail can be cancelled were given:
(i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency and (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc....".
Furthermore, in Myakala Dharmarajam and others v. State of Telangana, 2020, the alleged complaint that accused were influencing witnesses was held to be vague as except making an omnibus allegation to that effect there was no material to substantiate the same and the bail granted was not cancelled.
The court held that the accused making an attempt to threaten the witnesses appeared to be vague allegation without any valid basis. Nothing was brought to the notice of the police or investigating agency that the accused interfered with the course of investigation. The criminal petition was hence dismissed.
Case Title: Vaddu Lakshmidevamma @ Lakshmi Devi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 20
Click Here To Read/ Download Order