Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K.Perumal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 2021

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

[3240 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

 

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

      
  

  

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE | '
: PRESENT: j '
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI i Aa}
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 883 OF 2021 \ BAS § i
Between: \ ee
1. K.Perumal, S/o.Late_K Velu, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculturist, Rio BsNe 2 _--e
51, Penumallam Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District? (Opps ae

2. K.Dora Babu, S/o.K.Perumal, Aged about 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o.D.No.2-
51, Penumallam Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. B.Krishnaiah, S/o.Subramanavm, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Pennumallam Village,
Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District.
Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 3
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PP, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at |
Amaravati.
Respondent

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in
the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to
Enlarge on bail to the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 in the event of their arrest by the
police in Crime No.269 of 2020 DT 30-12-2020 on the file of SHO, YERPEDU U/G PS
now entrusting the investigation to Sub- Divisional Police Officer(SC and ST Cell)
Tirupati East Police Station Upstairs registered under Sections 506 r/w.34 IPC and
Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 or Voluntary surrender before the
Hon'ble SC and ST Court at Tirupati for investigation and trail on such terms and
conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds
filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI NAGARAJU NAGURU
Advocate for the Petitioners, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the
Court made the following.

ORDER:

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 883 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 to the petitioners/Al to AS in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.269 of 2020 of Yerpedu Police Station Tirupathi Urban registered for the offences punishable under Section 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 'SC & ST (POA) Act?.

2. The case of prosecution is that a complaint was lodged stating that the complainant is working as village volunteer and belongs to schedule caste. While so the Government has identified a place for construction of village secretariat in respect of which they have attended meeting of the Chief Minister and were about to lay foundation for construction of the village secretariat. On 28.12.2020 when the complainant and other staff were not available at the said site, the petitioners herein had raised a house with asbestos sheets. On coming to know about the same the Panchayat Secretary asked the complainant to inform the petitioners herein that the land belongs to them and they are proposing to construct village secretariat in that land. On 29.12.2020 at about 11:00 A.M. the complainant being a volunteer went to the site and when she tried to obstruct the construction, the petitioners herein abused her in the name of caste and

threatened her. In thé meantime other employees of the village

--_--

secretariat and lady constables have rescued her. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime is registered.

3. Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this complaint was registered on 30.12.2020 and due to political reasons now the Police are taking steps to arrest the petitioners as such they have approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of the land as alleged in the complaint, a house site patta has been granted in favour of mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 in the year 1995 and house was constructed in the said site. The complainant, due to local political pressures wanted to evict the petitioners from the said house and hence foisted this false case against the petitioners. He further submits that on the face of the complaint, it is quite evident that the petitioners have been implicated in this false case for the alleged offences.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the offences punishable under the provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act against the petitioners and prays to consider the petitioners' case for pre- arrest bail while placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India! wherein it was held that:

"Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. it shall not apply to the case under Act of 1989.

However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie

eet 12020 (4) SCC 727

case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18(2) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review

petitions.

6. On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that investigation is pending and in view of the bar under Section 18 of SC & ST (POA) Act, the request for enlarging the petitioners on pre-arrest bail may not be considered.

7. In this case the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under the provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act besides committing an offence attracted under Sections of I.P.C. But a perusal of the complaint prima facie evinces that it is a dispute with regard to property where mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 was granted house site patta in respect of which the village panchayat officers are proposing to construct a permanent building for village secretariat.

8. As rightly pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor there is bar under Section 18 of SC & ST (POA) Act for granting anticipatory bail. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India (referred supra) had considered the scope of Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act. Therefore, in view of the above and taking into consideration the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners/A1 to A3 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 269 of 2020 of Yerpedu Police

Station Tirupathi Urban on condition of executing self bond for

--_--

To,

RON

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties for a likesum each to the Satisfaction of the Station House Officer

Yerpedu Police Station, Tirupathi Urban.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

"Sai- K. TataRao

ITTRUE COPY//

For.

. The Station House Officer, YERPEDU U/G PS now entrusting the investigation to