Photos Show Accused Visiting Police Station To Comply With Bail Condition, Not Likely To Be Fabricated: Andhra Pradesh High Court

About the accused out on bail submitting photographs of them visiting the police station, Andhra Pradesh High Court held that it's prima facie not feasible to hold that the photos adduced were a mere attempt to fabricate evidence to show compliance with bail conditions.

The single-judge bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao opined that the Sessions Judge may have erred in making the inference that the accused went to the premises of the police station solely to take photographs and produce them as evidence of their visit later.

“…At this juncture, it remains inconclusive to ascertain the veracity of the claims… When considering the material produced, it appears improbable that the petitioners' visit to the police station was solely to fabricate evidence…”, the court observed at the culmination of proceedings arising from a revision petition against cancellation of anticipatory bail, filed by Accused Nos. 8 – 10.

The investigating officer had reported to the trial court that the accused failed to appear before the concerned police station regularly and contravened the conditions imposed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Crime was initially registered against the accused at Sarpavaram Police Station for offences under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 419, 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 (forgery), 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w 34  of IPC.

The Sessions Court at Kakinada, had revoked the anticipatory bail granted to the accused on 19.01.2024 since it felt that the photographs adduced as evidence to show attendance at the police station only revealed a ploy to fabricate evidence. According to the Addtl. Public Prosecutor, the accused failed to turn up before the investigating officer regularly, contrary to the stipulations contained in the bail order. The current revision petition was filed against the order dated 19.01.2024 that cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused.

“…This Court finds it difficult to accept the Sessions court's reasoning that the petitioners went to the police station solely to take photographs. The notion that the petitioners would attend the police station merely for photographic evidence seems implausible….”, the High Court stated that such a reasoning sounded 'slightly perplexing'.

The petitioners/accused, along the same lines, stuck to their version that they had visited the police station on the specified dates to mark their attendance. However, for reasons unknown to them, the police did not obtain their signatures. The investigating officer subsequently informed the trial court that the accused disobeyed the conditions for bail. The police officials refused to give them further instructions despite their presence in the station, the accused/ petitioners submitted.

“…If the petitioners were indeed present outside the police station, there would have been no hindrance preventing them from entering into the premises…”, the court added.

Moreover, the photographs submitted also showed the presence of the accused inside the police station, contrary to the averments made by the state, the court emphasised. Prima facie material, along with the photographs, suggested the intention of petitioners to comply with the bail conditions by making an effort to visit the police station, the court concluded before setting aside the trial court's order dated 19.01.2024.

After hearing both sides, the court accepted the suggestion made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to direct the petitioners/accused to appear before the jurisdictional magistrate twice a week until the chargesheet gets filed, instead of prolonging the revision petition.

Advocate D. Kodandarami Reddy appeared for the revision petitioners.

Case Name: Ramireddi Deepak & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No: Criminal Revision Case No: 308 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/ Download Order