Accused Can't Take Advantage Of Their Own Dilatory Tactics & Seek Bail If There Is Delay In Completing Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent case observed that the accused had created hurdles from time to time so that the trial could not be completed. As a consequence, the accused/petitioner is not entitled to bail as it cannot take advantage of their own dilatory tactics. Brief Facts of the case The Criminal Petition was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent case observed that the accused had created hurdles from time to time so that the trial could not be completed. As a consequence, the accused/petitioner is not entitled to bail as it cannot take advantage of their own dilatory tactics.
Brief Facts of the case
The Criminal Petition was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.
The Petitioner was accused in the crime and was facing prosecution along with other accused for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code dealing with murder, criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly and crimes under Indian Arms Act, 1959.
The case of the prosecution was that the assailants entered the office of Mayor in Chittoor District along with a pistol by wearing masks and trespassed into the Chambers of Mayor during day time and committed murder of the Mayor.
The counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in judicial custody and languishing in jail for more than 7 years and the trial of the case was not commenced till then. As a consequence, he prayed for grant of bail and he contended that the allegation against him was only that he hatched the conspiracy to commit the offence of murder and was not the person who committed the murder.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition stating that the petitioner was behind the conspiracy and the murder of Mayor. He engaged the services of assailants who committed the murder of the Mayor, arranged vehicles and masks and was waiting outside the office of Mayor to aid the other accused to escape from the scene of offence. Furthermore, the petitioner, if released on bail, would tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Consideration of the Court
The court observed that the trial was not completed within the time stipulated on account of hurdles created by the accused in the case from time to time. Many petitions such as petition for further investigation, revision petition, writ petition to question the appointment of Public Prosecutor to conduct trial in the case amongst others were filed to protract the trial of case.
The court held that when the accused are responsible for delay in completing the trial of the case, they cannot take advantage of their own dilatory tactics and seek bail on that ground. Furthermore, from the facts, the petitioner was the main person behind the conspiracy and commission of murder of the Mayor.
Therefore, the Court was of the considered view that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Criminal was dismissed with the direction to the trial court to complete the trial expeditiously as early as possible.
Case Title: S Muragan @ Muruga Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 40