B. Mehar Kumar At Balijepalli Mehar Kumar vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the criminal petitions and directed the release of the petitioners on bail. The Court observed that a major portion of the investigation appeared to have been completed. Considering this, and the fact that the petitioners had been in judicial custody since 31.05.2023 with bleak chances of absconding, coupled with the grant of bail to accused No. 2, the Court opined that the petitioners could be enlarged on bail. The reasoning for allowing bail was based on the completion of the significant part of the investigation, the duration of custody, and the parity with a co-accused who was already released on bail. The operative directions included releasing the petitioners on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each, reporting to the police station on specified days for a period of three months or until the charge sheet is filed, and an injunction against hampering the investigation or tampering with witnesses.

Facts

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 in Crime No. 552 of 2023 registered at Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City, filed criminal petitions seeking bail. The crime was registered for offences including criminal breach of trust, extortion, and forgery under the Indian Penal Code, and corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused were employees of the Intelligence Wing of the Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Vijayawada. A departmental inquiry, initiated based on news reports of corrupt practices and tax evasion facilitated by these officials, concluded that misconduct was proved. Subsequently, a report was lodged with the police, leading to the registration of the crime. The petitioners argued that similar writ petitions challenging their transfer and suspension were allowed by the High Court on 12.05.2023, finding fault with the enquiry process. They also pointed out that accused No. 2, a superior officer, was granted bail, with the court noting that the crucial part of the investigation was complete. The petitioners were arrested on 31.05.2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, considering the stage of investigation and the fact that a co-accused has already been granted bail? (Question of law and fact) The petitioners' side argued that the investigation was substantially complete, and the charge sheet was yet to be filed. They contended that accused No. 2, their superior, had been granted bail by the lower court, which observed that the crucial part of the investigation was completed and their custody was no longer required. They asserted that they stood on the same footing as accused No. 2 and therefore deserved similar relief. They also highlighted that writ petitions filed by some individuals challenging the enquiry process had been allowed by the High Court. The revenue's side (learned Assistant Public Prosecutor) opposed the applications, stating that only 11 witnesses had been examined, the investigation was ongoing, and other accused were still at large. They further argued that the writ petitions were allowed only on technical grounds, setting aside the suspension orders.