Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Despite Notice for Appearance
Andhra Pradesh HC grants anticipatory bail in Pinapala Uday Bhushan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, noting arrest apprehension persists after Section 41A notice.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted anticipatory bail in a notable decision regarding the maintainability of such applications even after the issuance of notice for appearance under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao presided over the case and observed that the apprehension of arrest persists even after the issuance of such notice.
Advocate Umesh Chandra PVG represented the petitioner, while the Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent. The Court's decision was influenced by a previous case, Sri Ramappa@Ramesh S/o Dharmanna v. State of Karnataka, where it was held that the apprehension of arrest remains even after the issuance of notice under Section 41A of the CrPC.
In the present case, the petitioner, Pinapala Uday Bhushan, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 469, 471, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of the IT Act, 2000. Allegedly, Bhushan posted explicit and defamatory content about two women using foul language.
The police officer issued a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC, prompting Bhushan's apprehension of arrest, leading him to seek anticipatory bail. The Court, considering the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail to Bhushan with certain conditions.
This decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court sheds light on the interpretation of Section 41A of the CrPC and clarifies that the apprehension of arrest does not dissipate with the issuance of notice for appearance.
