Pushapam Appala Naidu (A2) v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11165 OF 2018 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/ A2, seeking to quash the order dated 12.10.2018 in Crl.MP.No.1990 of 2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore.

2.

The petitioner is A2 among several accused in the above said C.C. Crime No.119 of 2008 of II Town Police Station, Nellore, Crime No.38 of 2008 of Kuchipudi Police Station, Crime No.156 of 2008 of Kakinada Police station, Crime No.186 of 2008 of I Town Police Station, Kadapa and crime No.75 of 2008 of Ganapavaram Police Station, are originally registered under Sections 420 and 406 r/ w 34 IPC and Sections 4 to 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978 and some of the cases are also registered under Section 417 IPC apart from the above offences and the crimes were transferred and the CBCID later taken up further investigation and in all those crimes, a common charge sheet is filed against several accused arrayed about 54 in the said final report by referring to 139 or more documents. 3.

So far as the petitioner in C.C.No.5 of 2017, which is an outcome of Crime No.119 of 2008 supra as A2, she was granted regular bail as A4 at the crime stage by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore in Crl.MP.No.269 of 2014

and one of the conditions in the bail order, particularly, from para-9 was that she shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. It appears from the police final report that passport of the petitioner, leave about others was seized by the investigating officer concerned and deposited in the Court. It is to say, the passport of the petitioner is in Court deposit.

4.

Consequently, the petitioner for leaving India to go to the so called native place, Malaysia, applied for relaxing the condition of not to leave the country imposed in the bail order and also return of the passport lying with the Court deposit, that was allowed by another Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7929 of 2015 on 28.08.2015. One of the conditions in permitting to travel by relaxing the condition for a limited period was on execution of a personal bond for Rs.50 lakhs originally was modified in Crl.P.MP No.12623 of 2016 by reducing to Rs.10 lakhs personal bond with one surety of a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge. She complied with the said order having taken the passport and left the Country to Malaysia and returned back and re-deposited the passport.

5.

Later, even the learned Special Judge-cum-Principal District Judge from the charge sheet taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/ w 34 and

Sections 3 to 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978 and Section 5 of the A.P.Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, on petition in Crl.MP.No.605 of 2017, by order, dated 10.07.2017, permitted the petitioner to go to Malaysia and return back within 26.06.2017 to 26.09.2017 i.e., for a period of three months, on execution of a personal bond for Rs.10 lakhs with one surety. Undisputedly, the same was also complied with. 6.

There is also another order, dated 01.03.2018 of the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge in Crl.MP No.154 of 2018 for the petitioner as A2 in C.C.No.5 of 2017 for the period between 05.02.2018 to 05.08.2018, for a period of six months to leave the country and to go to Malaysia and return back and redeposit the passport with self same conditions supra.

7.

Again, petition in Crl.MP.No.1664 of 2018 filed before the Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge seeking permission to leave the country to go to Malaysia for a period of six months that was ended in dismissal with observations that the petitioner earlier availed the permissions of the learned Special Judge, she has to enclose a travel schedule and it is six months she sought, which hampers the progress and there is no mention of what is the urgency even to permit, but for, on vague ground to go to Malaysia, thereby, the petition

deserves dismissal and eventually dismissed. It is, again, by seeking three months time filed another application in Crl.MP.No.1990 of 2018 that was also dismissed on 12.10.2018 with observation that the reasons given by the petitioner to go to Malaysia are that her mother aged about 84 years and there are no visa restrictions on her and she earlier travelled frequently concerned, the purport of the earlier order of the High Court was very clear of travel schedule is required to be given, which she failed to give and her intention appears to be to stay at Malaysia on the main ground of no visa restrictions, for which not entitled.

8.

The fact that the mother of the petitioner aged about 84 years hailing at Malaysia is, no doubt, not disputed by the prosecution. There are about 54 accused and NBWs are pending against some of them, as can be seen from the record and it is not a case of charges even heard, much less, by split up the case against appearing accused even to consider hampering of the trial but for not giving of the schedule of the stay with address and particulars and the same can be taken care of, by imposing in the very order so also limiting the period and the lower Court should have been allowed instead of dismissal in view of the above, that too, when earlier availed the concessions including for six months and complied with, without any breach.

9.

Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is allowed by relaxing the condition of not to leave the Country for the limited period by taking back the passport bearing No.38003489 from the learned Special Judge, subject to execution of a self bond for Rs.10 lakhs and to produce for equal amount FDR in the name of the petitioner with provision for encashment by Court and permitting the petitioner to leave the country and return back between 01.11.2018 to 31.01.2019. It is made clear that if she failed to comply with the order and failed to return the passport and come back to India, within the aforesaid period, leave about the availability of other coercive steps to secure her presence, the entire amount of Rs.

10 lakhs being given on FDR can be encashed by the lower Court and forfeited as confined under Section 53 IPC r/ w 421 and 431 I.P.C. to the State. This permission granted is in compliance of Section 6-A of the Indian Passport Act visà-vis Circular of the Central Government in G.S.R.570 E, dated 25.08.1993 and as per the expression of this Court in Abdul Gaffur Khan v. State of Telangana1.

10.

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date: 25.10.2018 pab 1 2015(1) ALT Crl.91 AP