Second Bail Application Maintainable When First Rejected Due To Prosecution's Misrepresentation Of Facts: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that when the first bail application is rejected due to prosecution submitting wrong facts, the second application is maintainable.

Telangana High Court Rules Second Bail Application Maintainable in Cases of Initial Rejection Due to Prosecutorial Misrepresentation"Thus, the information furnished by the prosecution is not on correct facts and that they have furnished false information. Except the present case, in other cases, the petitioner/accused No.5 herein was acquitted. There is no dispute that the second bail application is maintainable."

The Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana while passing the bail order has referred to the judgment passed in Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab and Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P. amongst other judgements to hold:

"Unless the court is in a position to hear and dispose of the appeal of a prisoner at an early date, it can be violation of prisoners' rights, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This interpretation can well be said to be extension of ‘right to life’...."

The Bench was hearing a bail application of an alleged Maoist leader who killed the deceased, President, Mandal Praja Parishad and Congress Leader, Amangal.

A case was registered and F.I.R was filed for murder (302 IPC) and section 25 and 27 of the UAPA.

The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution had failed to build a case or even to prove that the petitioner was in fact a Maoist Leader, the witnesses had turned hostile or failed to identify the accused and the prosecution even presented wrong information before the Bench.

On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the allegations were grave in nature and the petitioner had at least 17 cases pending/filed against him.

When the prosecution was asked to furnish information regarding the other cases, the Court took strict note of the fact that the prosecution had shown the accused as 'convicted' in the cases where the accused had actually been acquitted.

Out of the 17-18 cases filed against the accused, he was acquitted in at least 15 and 2 were still pending adjudication.

"As discussed supra, admittedly, during trial, the petitioner was remanded on 05.01.2008 to 21.11.2009 and he is in jail from 09.07.2014 i.e. almost 11 years. Earlier bail application was dismissed on the wrong information furnished by the prosecution. He has wife and a son. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the appellant/Accused No.5 is entitled for bail."

The court noted that the accused had been in jail since the past 11 years and it was held that refusal of bail should not be for punitive purposes but to secure the ends of justice.

Accordingly the interim bail was granted on the accused executing a personal bond for rupees 25,000/-

DARAGONI SRINU , VIKRAM, MAHABOOBNAGAR DIST. Vs. PP. HYD

Counsel for petitioner: R.PRASANTH

Counsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor

Click Here To Read/Download Order