w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Nallabothula Balaji & Another v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Public Prosecutor

    Criminal Petition No. 6672 of 2018

    Decided On, 04 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

    For the Petitioners: K. Narsi Reddy, Advocate.For the Respondent: Learned Public Prosecutor.



Judgment Text

The petitioners are the A.3 and A.4 among 5 or more in Cr.No.61 of 2015 of Darsi Police Station, Prakasham district of the alleged occurrence at about 2.45hours of 17.04.2015 registered for the offences punishable u/sec

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

.395 and 397 IPC. The petitioners were undisputedly granted concession of bail on 07.06.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.374 of 2016 and were enlarged on bail along with A.5. Subsequently for their failure to attend the Court, NBW was issued on 31.07.2017 and later they were arrested on execution of NBW on 25.10.2017, while the case was taken cognizance for the offences supra from the police final report pending as PRC No.7 of 2016, by hampering the progress of committal proceedings.

In fact, the bail order was not cancelled either u/sec.439(2) or u/sec.437(5) CrPC for their failure and even issuance of NBW and execution even does not amount to cancellation of bail but bail once granted it enures till end of trial.

The law is very clear from several expressions of this Court including one in Dasari Satyanarayana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh . Thus the remedy available to the petitioners is to furnish fresh solvencies from payment of penalty from the earlier bond for the default committed with the same. Instead of doing so, they maintained a fresh bail application in Crl.M.P.No.155 of 2018 that was ended in dismissal by the order of the VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Markapuram, dt.01.03.2018, saying that they earlier failed to attend pursuant to the bail order and the NBW executed and taken to custody, thereby they are not entitled to the concession of bail.

As held by this Court in common order, dt.28.06.2018 in Crl.P.Nos.6074, 6075 and 6078 of 2018, the mistakenly filing of a bail application instead of furnishing fresh solvency with undertaking to pay penalty on the earlier bond and even dismissal of the bail application not a bar once the earlier bail order is not cancelled for the remedy is to approach the trial Judge by offering to pay penalty on the earlier bond and to furnish fresh solvency.

In the result, The Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
O R