Alluri Anand Varma vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court took note of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor. Specifically, the Public Prosecutor acknowledged that the 1st petitioner had no connection to the offence. For the 2nd petitioner, it was stated that notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. would be issued, as the punishment for the alleged offence under Section 21(1) of MMDARA is less than seven years. Recording these submissions, the Criminal Petition was closed. The reasoning appears to be that since the police intended to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for the 2nd petitioner, which typically involves a notice to appear rather than immediate arrest for offences with punishment below seven years, the need for pre-arrest bail was mitigated. The ratio decidendi is that if the investigating agency assures the court that it will follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for an accused in a case where the punishment is less than seven years, the petition for pre-arrest bail may be closed on such recording.

Facts

The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 381 of 2020, registered for an offence under Section 21(1) of MMDARA. The petitioners were not initially arrayed as accused but became so based on the confessional statement of A-3. According to the remand report of A-3, the 2nd petitioner supplied building material and provided his GST number to A-3 for booking sand, sharing profits. The 2nd petitioner later claimed to have 1000 MTs of sand, paid Rs. 3,75,000/- towards a bank challan on 18.08.2020, and identified himself as a bulk consumer. He allegedly sold the sand at higher rates, but did not pay A-3 his commission. The 1st petitioner had no direct allegations against him, but police were visiting his house due to his involvement in another crime.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 381 of 2020 for the offence under Section 21(1) of MMDARA? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail due to apprehension of arrest. They argued that while the 2nd petitioner was involved in the sand transaction and allegedly used A-3's GST number, there were no direct allegations against the 1st petitioner. They highlighted that the 2nd petitioner was not paid his commission, implying a dispute rather than a criminal intent. Revenue's (Public Prosecutor's) arguments: The Public Prosecutor conceded that the 1st petitioner had no connection to the offence. Regarding the 2nd petitioner, it was submitted that he was arrayed as A-4 based on A-3's confession. However, it was also stated that since the punishment for the offence under Section 21(1) of MMDARA is below seven years, notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. had been issued to other accused, and the same procedure would be followed for the 2nd petitioner.