Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Karri Krishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.255 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre arrest
bail by the petitioners/accused in the event of their arrest in
connection with Crime No.658 of 2020 of the Station House
Officer, S.Rayavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 'SC ST
Act').
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged
on 22.11.2020 wherein it was stated that the de facto complainant
and others are living with their families. The 1st petitioner sent 20
persons including the de facto complainant to Bangalore for coolie
work. The de facto complainant and some others returned back.
Two coolies could not come back to the village. Hence on
23.11.2020 the de facto complainant along with two others went to
the shop of the 1st petitioner and asked him to deposit money for
return of the two persons. Then he abused them in the name of
caste, asked him to go away from his shop and the de facto
complainant was pushed out of the shop. They wanted to go to
police station for lodging report, but on the mid-way they returned
back to the village without going to the police station. But on the
mid way at bridge, the accused stopped them and hit the de facto
and others complainant, assaulted them on the face, body, ear
2
and in that process, his ear was injured and others were also
sustained bleeding injuries on the left eye and back side of the
head. Then, he called his brother-in-law and his wife. They came
and shifted them to Government hospital. Basing on the said
complaint, the present crime is registered.
3. Heard Sri Bondili Ravikiran Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as
the FIR is concerned, it was registered on 22.11.2020. But as per
the complaint, the incident happened on 23.11.2020. He also
submits that another complaint was pressed into service stating
that the incident happened on 22.11.2020. It is the specific case of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident
never happened and the petitioners are falsely implicated in this
case. He further submits that prima facie there is a dispute
whether the particular incident has happened or not in view of the
conflicting dates given in two complaints. He further submits that
even assuming that such an incident has happened, still an
application for anticipatory bail is maintainable.
5. He also relies on another judgment in Kasinathan vs. State
of Maharashtra1 wherein it is observed that:
"There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in
cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made
out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be
prima facie mala fide.."
(2018) 6 SCC 454
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand
submits that the complaint is forwarded to the Court wherein the
date is altered. It is only a typographical mistake and he submits
that the accused has sustained simple injuries and he submits
that the offences are under the provisions of SC ST (POA) Act, the
anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor and on perusal of the
complaint, there is no dispute about the fact that though a
complaint is registered under the provisions of the SC ST (POA)
Act, still the Court can entertain a petition seeking pre arrest bail.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No.1015 of 2018 and
Writ Petition (C) No.1016 of 2018 between Pruthvi Raj Chauhan
and Union of India has considered the scope of Section 18 of the
SC ST (POA) Act and observed that:
"concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438
Cr.P.C., shall not apply to the Act. However, if the
complainant does not make out a prima facie case for
applicability of the provisions of the Act the bar created
by Section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply."
"... ... It would only add a caveat with the observation and
emphasize that while considering any application seeking
pre-arrest bail, High Court has to balance two interests i.e.
the power is not so used to convert the jurisdiction under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., but that it is used sparingly and such
orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie
offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and if such orders
are not made in similar cases, the result would inevitably be
a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. Therefore,
I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the
philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use
of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the
intention of Parliament."
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail. As far as the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to
the date of the complaint, this Court is not able to appreciate the
same. The punishment for the alleged offences is below seven
years, the Police shall follow the procedure contemplated under
Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2 scrupulously. Any deviation
in this regard will be viewed seriously.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
Date :02.02.2021
KA
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
(2014) 8 SCC 273
CRIMINAL PETITION No.255 of 2021
02.02.2021
KA
