Introduction:

In a recent ruling by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the case of Ramireddi Deepak & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh brought into question the validity of photographic evidence submitted by the accused to demonstrate compliance with bail conditions. The court’s deliberations centered on whether the accused’s visit to the police station solely for the purpose of taking photographs constituted an attempt to fabricate evidence or a genuine effort to adhere to bail requirements.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the accused failed to regularly appear before the investigating officer as mandated by the bail conditions, citing the photographs submitted as evidence of their attendance at the police station. Conversely, Advocate D. Kodandarami Reddy, appearing for the revision petitioners, contended that the accused’s visit to the police station was genuine, and the refusal of the police to obtain their signatures hindered their compliance with bail conditions.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, presiding over the single-judge bench, expressed skepticism regarding the Sessions Court’s inference that the accused visited the police station solely to fabricate evidence. The court noted that it was implausible to assume that the accused would go to such lengths merely for photographic evidence. After reviewing the evidence, including the photographs and the accused’s version of events, the court concluded that the accused’s intention to comply with bail conditions was prima facie evident. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court’s order revoking anticipatory bail and directed the accused to appear before the jurisdictional magistrate twice a week until the filing of the chargesheet.