Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Siddireddy Sai Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 August, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5516 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the
petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 6 in Crime No.114 of 2022 of Malkipuram
Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 read with 149 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, when the de facto
complainant was in Gulf country, he gave 10 lakhs to Siddireddy Kanka
Durga/A.3 towards debt. After coming to his village, he requested the
accused No.3 to repay the loan amount, but she did not reply. On
30.06.2022 at night 09.30 p.m., while he was going to his house, the
accused attacked him and beat him with cricket bats over his head, face,
left knee and right elbow and caused severe bleeding injuries with an
intention to kill him as he asked to repay the debt amount. Hence, the
above crime was registered.
3. Heard Sri G.L. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor
for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has
been stated in the grounds, contended that the initial version of the de
facto complainant/injured in the hospital is that he sustained injuries on
head, ear and left leg as he fell from two wheeler and the same was
recorded by the hospital authorities in police intimation for OP/Admission
form and the same is placed on record and draw the attention of this
court and further contended that subsequently, the de facto
complainant/injured improvised his allegations and given compliant before
the police by changing the original version stated before the doctors to
that of the version given in the complaint. The counsel for the petitioners
further contended that the allegations have been changed from time to
time and only to implicate the petitioners in the present crime, the present
compliant has been given. He further stated that the incident took place
on 30.06.2022, but the compliant was given on 02.07.2022 and this itself
falsifies that the entire allegations are cooked up stories only to harass the
petitioners. He further submitted that this court pleased to consider pre
arrest bail to accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.4985 of 2022 in the very same
crime and prayed this court to grant anticipatory bail stating that the
petitioner will definitely cooperate with the investigation and she will abide
any conditions imposed by this court.
5. On the other hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed to
grant pre-arrest bail and contended that the offences are serious in nature
and the F.I.R., is not an encyclopedia to have the entire allegations and in
161 Cr.P.C. statements further information has been received and that has
to be taken due note while considering the bail application and relied
upon a case reported in Indresh Kumar Vs. State of Utter Pradesh1 in
support of his contention. He further contended that in the event of
granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, they may not cooperate with
the investigation and may influence the witnesses and tamper the
evidence and seeks for dismissal of the petition.
2022 Live Law SC 610
6. A perusal of the record shows that initially, the version of the de
facto complainant/injured in the hospital is that he fell from two wheeler
and sustained injuries to his head, ear and leg and further the police
intimation for OP/admission form given by the doctors also shows that
injured is in no loss of consciousness and no vomiting. No doubt, there is
a changed version from the doctors information given to the police and in
the F.I.R., and further in 161 Cr.P.C statement, which is improvised
version of the injured when comparing to these two statements. There is
no doubt that the 161 Cr.P.C. statements has to be looked into prima
facie while considering bail application and the judgment relied upon by
the learned Assistant Special Public Prosecutor is settled principle of law.
In the present case, there is some force in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners about change of version from time to time.
7. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and
for the reasons stated above and as Accused No.3 was already granted
pre-arrest bail, this court is inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the
petitioners by duly taking the apprehensions made by the learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration with the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 6 shall be released on bail in case
of their arrest in Crime No.114 of 2022 of Malkipuram Police Station, East
Godavari District on their executing a self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Malkipuram Police Station, East
Godavari District; and
(ii) On release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House
Officer, Malkipuram Police Station, East Godavari District, once in a week
i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m., and 12.00 noon; and
(iii) The petitioners shall cooperate with investigation and trial and
shall appear before the investigating officer, as and when their presence is
required and they shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with
evidence.
Further, the petitioners shall scrupulously comply with the above
conditions and in case of infraction of the same, the prosecution is at
liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
12th August, 2022
Rmn
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
ALLOWED
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5516 OF 2022
Date: 12.08.2022
U
Rmn
