Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' In ... vs Police Station
2022 Latest Caselaw 4948 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.5061 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal

Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking regular bail, by the

petitioner/Accused No.291 in Crime No.139 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town

Police Station, East District, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324

and 435 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage

to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.05.2022 at about 4.00

p.m., 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.

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, damaged the glasses of Collectorate Office and

Ambedkar Bhavan.

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; 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 Village Revenue Officer of the

30th Ward, Amalapuram Town, the present crime was registered.

3. Heard Sri Banka Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's

name was not figured in the complaint. Basing on the confession

statement of Accused No.265, the name of the petitioner was reflected

and it is also contended that some of the accused in the present crime

and other crimes registered in connection with the same incident were

granted regular as well as anticipatory bails. It is also contended that the

petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2022 and remanded on 20.06.2022 and

requested to consider enlarging the petitioner on bail on any conditions

that may be imposed.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that the 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 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.

6. A perusal of the complaint discloses that initially the petitioner's

name is not reflected, but on the confession statement of A-265, the

petitioner name is reflected in the above crime.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

petitioner herein is falsely implicated in this crime due to political

differences whereas according to the prosecution, petitioner is active

participant in the rally and he executed illegal acts as per conspiracy of

their leaders.

The learned Public Prosecutor specifically urged that petitioner's

custody is important in this case, since according to the prosecution, he is

active participant 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.

(2018) 10 SCC 713 : 2018 SCC Online SC 1719

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 petitioner.

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

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 petitioner has

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.

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 and anticipatory bails by this Court whereas the

petitioner is languishing in jail since 19.06.2022, this Court feels it

appropriate to consider in granting bail to the petitioner on the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing self bond for

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum

each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Amalapuram;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Station House

Officer, 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;

(iii) The petitioner 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.

(iv) The petitioner shall furnish his mobile phone number and residential address as well as that of his sureties to the I.O./SHO concerned and he shall keep his mobile phone operational at all times during this period and in the event of any change of the same, he shall immediately inform the same to the I.O./S.H.O. and,

(v) The petitioner shall drop a pin location on Google Maps so that the location of the petitioner is available to the Investigation Officer.

Further, the petitioner 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.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

3rd August, 2022 Rmn

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

ALLOWED

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5061 OF 2022

Date: 03.08.2022

U

Rmn