Arigela Venkata Vinay vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5203 AP

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.6108 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

petitioners/Accused in Crime No.127 of 2022 of Amalapuram Taluq

Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 452, 436 and

307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1908 ('IPC' in short), Section

32 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Act 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.

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 Watchman of the house

of the Hon'ble Minister, Crime No.127 of 2022 was registered.

3. Heard Sri G. Yaswanth, 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

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 present crime. Subsequently, based on the alleged self confession

statements of the accused, they were arrayed as accused in the above

crime and were arrested on PT warrant during the months of June and

July, 2022 and since then they are languishing in jail.

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 learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

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 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. ....."

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

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 statements, 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.

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.

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

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.

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 Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17th August, 2022 GBS