[S.41A CrPC] Mere Issuance Of Notice Will Not Act As Bar Against Application For Anticipatory Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere issuance of a Section 41-A CrPc notice will not act as a bar against an application for anticipatory bail.

Relying on the order passed by in Sri. Ramappa @ Ramesh s/o Dharmanna vs. State of Karnataka the Bench held:

"In the light of the above decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court views that there is apprehension of arrest exists, even after issuance of notice of appearance it cannot be said that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable."

The order was passed by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao in a criminal petition filed by one Uday Bhushan; against whom an FIR was registered in February, on the allegations that he along with his son impersonated the defacto complainant and posted defaming content on Facebook against the YSR family specifically YS Sharmila and YS Sunitha.

It was alleged that the accused had impersonated the de facto complainant to settle political scores, as the accused were supporters of the opposition party and the complainant was from the ruling YSR Congress party.

The criminal petition had been filed seeking anticipatory bail as a foresight of the above-mentioned FIR.

The prosecution contended that the object of issuance of a 41-A notice was to eliminate the fear of an unwarranted arrest and once a 41-A notice was issued, subsequent issuance of an anticipatory bail would be redundant.

The accused on the other hand argued that even after a 41-A notice was issued, the accused could be arrested as per 41A (4). Further, there was no specific bar under the CrPc stipulating that an anticipatory bail could not be sought for after the issuance of a 41A notice.

Firstly, it was argued that the offences have a punishment prescribed of less than 7 years and thus fall within the ambit of the Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar judgment.

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner/accused contended that when the accused arrived at the Pulivendula PS, the complainant who was present there threatened to get them assassinated. Hence, even if the accused wanted, he could not comply with the 41-A conditions due to fear of life.

After hearing both sides the Bench the Court held:

"Considering the submissions made and the health condition of the petitioner herein, since the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein..."

The accused was directed to appear before the SHO concerned and execute a bond for Rs 20,000/- and appear before the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa once in a fortnight for 3 months.

The petition was allowed.

CrlP 1052 of 2024

Counsel for petitioner: Umesh Chandra PVG

Counsel for State: PP

Click Here To Read/Download Order