+-THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6214 & 6263 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 437 & 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking regular bail, by the
petitioners/Accused Nos.288 & 296, respectively in Crime No.126 of
2022 of Amalapuram Taluq Police Station, East Godavari District,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,
151, 152, 155 452, 436, 353, 332, 427, 188 and 307 read with 149 of the
Indian Penal Code 1908 ('IPC' in short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Prevention of Damage to the Public Properties Act, Section 32 of the
Police Act, 1861 and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, Amendment Act, 2015
(01/2016).
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.05.2022 on a call
given by JAC of Konaseema Sadhana Committee, huge number of people
gathered for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette
notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema District, by
violating the order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the
Police Act. The mob started rally at Kalasam Centre, Amalapuram Town
and proceeded to Clock Tower Centre and in the meanwhile various
groups of public came from four corners to the clock tower centre and
formed into a huge mob.
Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to
Collectorate, when Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted
stones on the Police and also burnt BVC college bus which was used as
transport vehicle for Police.
2
Further, when the Police tried to control the mob at Collectorate,
the mob pelted stones on Police personnel due to which some of the
Police sustained injuries and the glasses of Collectorate Office and
Ambedkar Bhavan were damaged.
Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthenna),
intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses.
The mob further moved towards the house of Hon'ble Minister.
When the mob shouted and beat police persons, AR constable fired
rounds in air, but agitators attacked complainant and his staff and
attacked staff of the Hon'ble Minister, caused damage to the furniture and
set fire to the house of the Minister and later proceeded to the house of
local MLA. Basing on the complaint lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Amalapuram, Crime No.126 of 2022 was registered.
4. Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
5. Though notice is required to be served on the victim as per the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, Amendment Act, 2015, since notice on the same victim was served in several other Criminal Petitions in this crime as well as in other crimes, arisen out of the same incident, no prejudice would be caused to the victim, if no notice is served in this Criminal Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that six crimes were registered in connection with 'Konaseema' agitation occurred on 24.05.2022 at Amalapuram. The said six Crimes are FIR Nos.138, 139, 140 and 141 of 3 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station and FIR Nos.126 and 127 of 2022 of Amalapuram Taluq Police Station.
It is stated that initially the petitioners' names were not figured in the complaint. However, as per the prosecution version, Accused No.288 was implicated, based on his own confession and was arrested on 21.06.2022 and Accused No.296 was implicated basing on the confessions statement of Accused No.293 and was arrested on 22.06.2022 and since then they are languishing in jail.
It is also stated that the petitioners approached the Sessions Court by filing Criminal M.P.Nos.1125 and 1130 of 2022 seeking bail and the said petitions were dismissed on 19.07.2022 on the ground investigation is still pending.
It is also contended that some of the accused in the present crimes and other crimes registered in connection with the same incident were granted regular as well as anticipatory bails. Hence, requested to consider enlarging the petitioners also on bail on any conditions that may be imposed.
7. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have already approached Sessions Court and filed bail applications and the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the said applications on the ground that investigation is pending. The said orders of the learned Sessions Judge are placed on record.
It is further submitted that involvement of the petitioners is evident from the photographs taken at the scene of offence and investigation is still pending. If at all this Court wants to consider the present bail petition, in such case, he draw the attention of the Court to the decision 4 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kodungallu Film Society v. Union of India1 wherein it is held as follows:
C. Liability of person causing violence
a) .......
b) .......
c) A person arrested for either committing or initiating,
promoting, instigating or in any way causing to occur any act of violence which results in loss of life or damage to property may be granted conditional bail upon depositing the quantified loss caused due to such violence or furnishing security for such quantified loss. ....."
Relying on the judgment cited supra, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, prayed this Court to impose some costs for the loss caused to the State.
8. A perusal of the complaint discloses that initially the petitioners' names were not reflected, but as per the self confession statement/confession statement of the other arrested accused, the petitioners' names are reflected in the above crime.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners herein are falsely implicated in these crimes due to political differences whereas according to the prosecution, petitioners are active participants in the rally and they executed illegal acts as per conspiracy of their leaders.
The learned Public Prosecutor specifically urged that petitioners' custody is important in this case, since according to the prosecution, they are active participants in hatching up the plan through whatsapp group and other social media platform, which resulted in occurrence of large- scale violence and other related executing the illegal acts as conspired. 1 (2018) 10 SCC 713 : 2018 SCC Online SC 1719 5 As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to attract Sections 146 and 147 of IPC, there should unlawful assembly. For better appreciation it is appropriate to extract Sections 141, 146 and 147 of IPC.
141. Unlawful assembly.--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is--
(First) -- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1[the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (Second) -- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (Third) -- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (Fourth) -- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (Fifth) -- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation.--An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
146. Rioting.--Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
6
147. Punishment for rioting.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Thus, there must be unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of IPC for attracting offences under Sections 146 and 147 of IPC. In the present case nothing is forthcoming from the record to show that all the people in the mob had a common intention of committing an offence.
The other contention raised by learned Public Prosecutor is regarding applicability of Section 307 of IPC. Section 307 of IPC reads thus:
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--
2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] Further, admittedly the mob consists of more than 1000 people.
None of the complaints indicate about common intention or common object of committing an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Specific overt acts were not attributed against the petitioners.
It is also evident from the record that the mob gathered for submitting their representations at Collectorate office, but not with an intention of committing any offence and admittedly the mob was not 7 armed with weapons. Photographs filed by prosecution do not show that mob is armed with weapons.
Till today, there is no material to show that the petitioners have damaged any property. In view of the same, the decision relied on by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor cannot be made applicable at this stage and his request to impose costs cannot be considered.
9. On perusal of the material on record, considering the submissions of the both the parties and in view of the fact that the other accused were already granted regular/anticipatory bail by this Court whereas the petitioners are languishing in jail, this Court feels it appropriate to consider granting bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram;
(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, Amalapuram Taluq Police Station twice in a week i.e. on every Monday and Thursday between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till filing of the charge sheet; and
(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation.
Further, the petitioners shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and bail automatically gets cancelled without any further order of this Court.
8
It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the regular bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17th August, 2022 GBS