Harijana Muddavaram Pedda Madduleti and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool dated 29-6-1999 passed in Crl. MP No.1518 of 1999 in Sessions Case No.474 of 1996 under which the petitioners, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 respectively have been remanded to custody by cancelling their bail u/s 437(5) of the Cr.PC.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners narrated the circumstances under which this order has been passed and points out that this order has been passed on the ground of absence of A4 and A5 in respect of whom, on their failure to appear on the scheduled date of hearing, non-bailable warrants were issued and were pending. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends and rightly so that the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order entirely on erroneous grounds.

It appears that A4 and A5 who are also on bail failed to appear on 21-6-1999 and non-bailable warrants were issued and warrants were not executed and those accused again failed to appear on the next date of hearing also on 29-6-1999. On this day, the learned Judge passed the impugned order stating that the absence of those accused was a device for protracting the trial. He also expressed an opinion that unless the accused who have attended the Court are remanded to custody, the trial may not proceed smoothly. He also makes a reference to the fact of purported promise of the petitioners herein to produce A4 and A5. Presumably, the failure of the petitioners to keep their promise of producing the absent accused led to the present order.

As held by the Supreme Court in Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 Crl.LJ 160, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. In this case, as stated above, the cancellation of bail is the result of non-appearance of A4 and A5. It is surprising that the learned Sessions Judge should have thought it fit to cancel the bail of the petitioners merely on the ground that the other accused in the case failed to appear. Referring to the purported promise of the petitioners to produce the other accused, it may be mentioned that an accused is under no obligation to secure the presence of a co-accused. It is open to the Court to take such action as may be called for in respect of the accused who failed to appear in the Court in terms of their bonds but that can never be a ground for cancellation of bail of those accused who have consistently complying with the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them while being released on bail. Unless there are circumstances to show that they connived or colluded with the accused who failed to appear. Taking any view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be justified.

In the result, this Criminal revision is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 29-6-1999 in Crl. MP No.1518 of 1999 in SC No.474 of 1996 on the file of the District Court, Kurnool is set aside. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail on the same terms on which they have been on bail before the impugned order was passed.