Bhukya Raju vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
AI Summary
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by accused persons in a case involving alleged illegal transportation of black jaggery and rock candy under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Prohibition Act. The court held that since the petitioners had already been served with notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C, they must follow the prescribed legal procedure and cannot seek pre-arrest bail at this stage.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
On September 21, 2020, at approximately 10:00 a.m., the Sub Inspector of Police at Chillakallu Police Station, Krishna District, was conducting a vehicle check based on credible information. During this check, a Tata Manza car bearing registration number AP28 CE 0027 was stopped. Upon seeing the police, the occupants of the car attempted to escape but were apprehended. The police seized 10 bags of black jaggery (each weighing 50 kilograms) and one bag of rock candy from the vehicle. The petitioners were alleged to have committed offenses under Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, Section 7(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, and the GUR Regulation Order. Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C was subsequently served on the petitioners directing them to appear before the Station House Officer, but they did not cooperate with the investigation.
Timeline of Events
Police conducted vehicle check and seized 10 bags of black jaggery (50 kg each) and one bag of rock candy from Tata Manza car bearing number AP28 CE 0027; occupants attempted to escape and were apprehended
Crime No. 894 of 2020 registered at Chillakallu Police Station; petitioners alleged to have committed offenses under Section 34-A Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968, Section 7(A) Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, and GUR Regulation Order
Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C served on petitioners directing them to appear before Station House Officer; petitioners did not cooperate with investigation
Criminal Petition No. 2 of 2021 filed seeking anticipatory bail; case registered and filed in Andhra Pradesh High Court
First hearing before Justice Lalitha Kanneganti; case listed as interlocutory bail petition
Second hearing; case continued as interlocutory
Third hearing; case listed for final hearing on anticipatory bail
Final hearing and order; anticipatory bail petition dismissed by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti
Key Factual Findings
Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C was served on the petitioners
Source: Recited from Respondent Pleading
Petitioners were directed to appear before the Station House Officer
Source: Recited from Respondent Pleading
Petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation
Source: Recited from Respondent Pleading
Police seized 10 bags of black jaggery and one bag of rock candy from the vehicle
Source: Recited from Prosecution Case
Occupants of the car attempted to escape when they saw the police
Source: Recited from Prosecution Case
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that: (1) Omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners without attributing any specific overt acts to them; (2) The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case; (3) The allegations are vague and do not establish individual culpability.
Respondent's Arguments
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that: (1) The petitioners along with others were already served with notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C; (2) They were directed to appear before the Station House Officer; (3) The petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation; (4) The police have followed the prescribed procedure and the petitioners cannot evade the legal process.
Court's Reasoning
The court reasoned that once the police have issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C to the petitioners, they must follow the procedure as per law. The court held that without seeking permission of the concerned Magistrate, the police cannot apprehend the petitioners. Therefore, at the stage when notice has already been served, the petition for grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be entertained. The court did not find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail when the prescribed legal procedure for notice and appearance has already been initiated.
- Emphasis on adherence to prescribed legal procedure
- Respect for the investigative process and police authority within legal bounds
- Caution against premature grant of anticipatory bail when statutory procedures are available
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be entertained at this stage
- 2.All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other High Court)
This is a single bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on a procedural matter regarding anticipatory bail. While it does not establish binding precedent outside Andhra Pradesh, it provides persuasive authority on the interpretation of Section 438 and Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the proper stage at which anticipatory bail petitions should be entertained. The decision clarifies the procedural requirements that must be followed when notice under Section 41-A has been served.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Lalitha Kanneganti
Listed On:
20 Jan 2021
Order Text
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2 of 2021
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.894 of 2020 on the file of Chillakallu Police Station, Krishna District, wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 34-A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968; Section 7 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and GUR Regulation Order of Rules.
-
The case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2020 at about 10.00 a.m. on credible information while the Sub Inspector of Police, Chillakallu Police Station was conducting the vehicle check found one Tata Manza Car bearing No.AP28 CE 0027 and on seeing the police, inmates of the car tried to escape, they were apprehended and the police seized 10 bags of each 50 KGs of black jaggery and one bag of rock candy from their possession.
-
Heard Sri P.Srinivasa Choudary, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
-
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners and no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners and they were falsely implicated in this case.
-
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners along with others were already served with notice
under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and they were directed to appear before the Station House Officer, but they are not cooperating with the investigation.
-
When once the police have issued the notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C to the petitioners, they have to follow the procedure as per law and without seeking permission of the concerned Magistrate, the police cannot apprehend the petitioners. Hence, at this stage the petition for grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be entertained.
-
In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
20th January, 2021 PVD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
DISMISSED
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2 of 2021
20th January, 2021
PVD
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order