THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2364 and 2642 of 2009 Date: 17.08.2009 Between: V. Rambai ..Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh and otehrs. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2364 and 2642 of 2009 ORDER: These two criminal petitions are filed by the defacto complainant in Crime No.90 of 2008 of Kodad Town P.S., Nalgonda District, seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondents/accused Nos.1 to 5. 2. The substance of the complaint presented by the defacto complainant before the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, in brief, is that accused No.1 - Silveru Venkateswarlu and herself got married on 21.09.1984. After marriage, accused No.1 set up practice in Kodad and whereas she joined in service. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 resorted to harassing her and her son. Some disputes cropped up between them. It appears a case in Crime No.86 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. came to be registered against the defacto complainant, her son and her brothers. According to her, she presented a complaint before the Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Kodad on 28.04.2008 at 11.0 p.m. but the S.H.O. refused to receive the complaint. Having no other go, according to the petitioner, she lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, and the said complaint came to be forwarded to the above said S.H.O., who registered a case in Crime No.90 of 2008 against accused No.1- Silveru Venkateswwarlu, accused No.2 – Silveru Narsimha @ Narsaiah, accused No.3 – Silveru Krishna, accused No.4 – Chetaraju Padmalatha @ Padma and accused No.5 – Chetaraju Venkateshwarlu. Accused Nos.2 to 5 surrendered before the Magistrate concerned and approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused, proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to accused Nos.2 to 5 as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.64 of 2009 in Crime No.90 of 2008, dated 26.02.2009. Accused No.1 approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by filing Crl.P.No.4308 of 2008. This Court, by order dated 24.07.2008, directed accused No.1 to surrender himself before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad, and on such surrender the learned Magistrate shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the said Court. These two instant applications have been filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to accused Nos.1 to 5, more precisely Crl.P.No.2642 of 2009 is filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.2364 of 2009 is filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos.2 to 5. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused No.1 claimed anticipatory bail suppressing the fact of his involvement in the offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A further submission has been made that there is every likelihood of the accused influencing the witnesses and therefore, the accused do not deserve to be admitted to bail. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused submits that in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4308 of 2008 dated 24.07.2008, the accused surrendered before the Court concerned and are presently on bail. A further submission has been made that no specific instances have been brought out to draw an inference that the accused are influencing the witnesses. 6. Rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is harsh order, because it takes away liberty of a individual, who was granted bail, as was held in the decision of the Supreme Court in Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra[1]. 7. Except making a bald allegation that the accused are likely to influence the witnesses, no specific instances have been brought out to infer that the accused resorted to such act. Even otherwise anticipatory bail was granted to accused No.1 on 24.07.2008 in Crl.P.No.4308 of 2008 and whereas regular bail was granted to accused Nos.2 to 5 on 26.02.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.64 of 2009. In the absence of any specific instances to suggest that the respondents/accused have misused the bail granted to them, it is not desirable to cancel the bail granted to them at this stage. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date: 17.08.2009 GHN [1] (2004)2 SCC 362 = AIR 2004 SC 2890