The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that each case is evaluated based on its own merits, and the fact that others were released on bail does not automatically entitle the Petitioner to anticipatory bail.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the large-scale misappropriation of funds siphoned off from the Chief Minister Relief Fund and the complaint was made to the Chief Minister by the Special Secretary stating a list of patients who had taken treatment in the hospital and received applications in the CMRF Section was sent for cross- verification to check their authenticity. Upon verification, it was found that the accused misappropriated the funds. The case was registered for the offense under Sections 403, 406, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the present criminal petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner didn’t participate in any illegal activities. It was furthermore submitted that the other accused, A.1 to A.4 and A.6, were granted regular bail by this court in previous cases.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that It is not necessary to conduct a thorough investigation of the facts or a thorough documentation of the case's merits before granting bail. This did not imply that some justifications for the initial determination of the bail granted did not need to be stated. The court relied upon the judgments titled Mahipal V. Rajesh, and Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another.
It was furthermore observed that the anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that the Petitioner is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted.
The court noted that others were released on bail does not automatically entitle the Petitioner to anticipatory bail and rejected the contention made by the Petitioner that other Accused Persons were released on bail.
The court furthermore noted that the investigation is still pending and the release of the Petitioner may adversely affect the investigation process. There is every possibility of threatening the witnesses as apprehended by the Prosecution. To bring out all material information relating to the offense, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances and thus, no such circumstances having been made out in this case and the Court refused to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal Petition.
Case title: P Vijayababu @ Vijay V. State Of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.; CRIMINAL PETITION NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO:457/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: K. Srinivas
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
