Andhra Pradesh HC Relies On Photos Taken By Accused In Police Station To Accept Their Case That They Complied With Bail Condition, Sets Aside Order Cancelling Bail
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the order of a trial court which cancelled an anticipatory bail on the ground that the accused did not visit the Police Station in compliance with the anticipatory bail condition. The Court relied upon photos produced by the petitioners to hold that it can't be accepted that the petitioners went to the police station solely to take photographs, which the trial court deemed to be insufficient to demonstrate the petitioners' compliance with the bail condition.
The Bench was perplexed by the reasoning of the trial court to cancel the anticipatory bail. The Court stated that “the notion that the petitioners would attend the police station merely for photographic evidence seems implausible.” As per the Court, it was “improbable” for the petitioners to visit the police station solely to fabricate evidence and not to comply with the bail conditions imposed upon them.
A Single Bench of Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao observed, “This Court finds it difficult to accept the Sessions court's reasoning that the petitioners went to the police station solely to take photographs. The notion that the petitioners would attend the police station merely for photographic evidence seems implausible. It appears somewhat perplexing to this Court. The petitioners assert that they did, in fact, attend the police station and were present there while awaiting further instructions.”
Advocate D Kodandarami Reddy represented the petitioner. In the impugned order, the trial court had observed that the petitioners had submitted photographs purportedly showing their attendance at the police station. However, upon examination, the trial court found that most of the photographs were taken outside the premises of the police station and the material provided was deemed insufficient to demonstrate the petitioners' compliance with the conditions outlined.
The Bench stated that the notion of attending the police station merely for photographs was “perplexing” to them .“When considering the material produced, it appears improbable that the petitioners' visit to the police station was solely to fabricate evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, in the opinion of this Court, may not have adequately addressed the contentions raised by the petitioners,” the Court remarked.
The Court stated that “the learned Sessions Judge, in the opinion of this Court, may not have adequately addressed the contentions raised by the petitioners. If the petitioners were indeed present outside the police station, there would have been no hindrance preventing them from entering into the premises. Additionally, the photographs submitted by the petitioners' counsel to show their presence inside the police station, refuting the assertion made by the police that they remained outside.”
Consequently, the Bench set aside the order of the trial court and directed the petitioners to be available before the jurisdictional Court on a bi-weekly basis until the filing of the charge sheet.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Ramireddi Deepak & Ors. v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
