Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a criminal petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for the grant of anticipatory bail, T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J., opined that if an apprehension of arrest existed even after issuance of notice of appearance, it could not be said that anticipatory bail application was not maintainable. Thus, considering petitioner’s health condition and that the offences alleged against petitioner were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner.
Background
On 03-02-2024, respondent-complainant filed a report before the police stating that some unknown persons had created fake ID on Facebook in complainant’s name and posted explicit and defamatory content about Mrs. X and Mrs. Y and abused them in filthy language. Respondent stated that the propagation of such false narratives not only inflicted irreparable harm upon the affected families but also subjected the targeted individuals to unwarranted public scrutiny and emotional distress. Further, respondent was also defamed in the eyes of the society.
Further, the offences alleged against petitioner were less than seven years of imprisonment and the investigation officer had issued notice under Section 41A to petitioner. Petitioner contended that, he could not appear before the investigation officer because of apprehension that petitioner was housed at police station for issuance of Section 41A notice, and complainant intimidated petitioner in police station itself stating that complainant would see that petitioner was assassinated. Petitioner further submitted that he was about 59 years of age and had undergone several surgeries including a stunt to his heart.
Thus, petitioner filed the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Sri Ramappa v. State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12793, and opined that if an apprehension of arrest existed even after issuance of notice of appearance, it could not be said that anticipatory bail application was not maintainable. Thus, considering petitioner’s health condition and the offences alleged against petitioner were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner.
The Court directed petitioner to surrender before the Station House Officer concerned, within a period of ten days from today, and on such surrender, petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail after executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned. Further, on release petitioner should appear before the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, once in a fortnight for a period of three months and, petitioner should co-operate with the investigation.
[Pinapala Uday Bhushan v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 790, Order dated 26-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Umesh Chandra P, Advocate;
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
