Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kanipudi Ramesh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 August, 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDNRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT!

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, PWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY TW
> PRESENT >

   

THE HONQURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPAT!

CRLLP.No. S766 af 2022

Raniud! Ramesh, $/a. Pallamraju

Vakanalli Yeers Sai Manikanta, S/o. Veera Venkata Subbarao
Suda Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Narasimha Murthy

Mattaparthi Hemanth Rashu Vinal S/o. Bala Srihari

Dasam Vishnu Satyanandam, 5/a. Satyanarayana

Nakka Nari Sal @ Nari, 5/0. Srinivasa Rac

Nalla Sita Rambabu @ Rambabu, $/a. Sri, Rarna Rao

 

4.
°
Be
3.
4,
*
&.
Fe

vow Petitioners
AND

e State of Andhra Pradesh, Station House Officer, Amalapurarm Taluq Police
tat fon, Amalauram, East Godavari District, Rep. by Public Prosectitor,
Nigh Cour t, Amearavati.

ee ah

ze

ve ReSpaINdEenk,

Petition filed under Section 438 of CrP.c. praying that In the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Caurt may be pleased to release the Petitioners/Accused' an ball in the
event of thelr arrest in FIR Noa. 126 of 2022 on the fle fo the Statian House

Officer, Amalapuram Talug Police Siation, Amalapuram, Fast Godavari District.

The petitien coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of
grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of
Mis, 8. Anitha, Advacate for the Petitioner and of Srt Scora
Venkata Saineth, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor an behall of
respondent-State, the Court rade the fallawing

QRDER c-
 

4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

 

ORDER:

This Criminal! Petition is filed under Sections 438 of Criminal Procedure Code CCr.P.C." in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the petitioners/Accused in the Crime No.126 of 2022 dated 24.05.2022 of Amalapuram Talug Police Station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 452, 436, 353, 332, 427, 188, 307 r/w. 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 (2) (v), 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Amendment Act 2015 (01/2016). |

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.05.2022 ona 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

. a"

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 the Sub-Inspector of Police Crime No.126 of 2022 was registered.

Though notice is required to be served on the victim as per The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Amendment Act 2015 (01/2016), since notices to the victim have been served in this crime as well as other crimes, no prejudice words be caused even if no notice is served on the victim.

4. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior counsel representing learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the ré8pondent-State.

e respondent-State a

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that initially the petitioners names were not figured in the complaint. Basing on the confession statements of the other accused, their names were arrayed as accused in this crime. It is also contended that the petitioner Nos.6 and 7 were shown as Accused No.37 and 30 in the present case were granted anticipatory bail in other crimes which are registered in connection with the same incident and

sought to consider the present petition also on similar lines.

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 petitions, 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 India* wherein it is held as follows:

C. Liability of person causing violence

b) cesses

Cc) 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.

6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the other accused confessed about the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime, as such he is shown as accused in the above crimes. He submits that investigation is

pending and offences are serious in nature and hence

petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission

made on either side and perused the record.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors? laid the following principles which are to be considered while granting bail.

i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role

of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest

is made;

ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment

on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar

or the other offences.

v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object

of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

? AIR 2011 SC 312 = MANU/SC/1021/2010

submission of representations.

vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of

large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and

concern;

viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment,

humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the

complainant;

x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is

entitled to an order of bail."

The record reveals that pursuant to notification issued

by the Government about change of name of Konaseema District as Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District a call was

given by JAC Konaseema District Sadhana Samithi for

thousands of people gathered at Clock Tower Centre and proceeded to Collectorate Office. When Police tried to prevent

them from entering the premises said mob pelted stones on

In pursuance of the same

the Police and caused injuries to them. Further the mob also damaged Collectorate Office as well as Ambedkar Building and

also lit fire to buses.

10. As can be seen from the entire record prosecution

identified accused basing on CC Tv footage, social media

videos and photos. Further except mentioning the names of accused in FIR, no specific overt acts were attributed against

the petitioner or any other accused.

11. 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, i[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

em, ' oe

(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.

12. 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.

13. 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 1f[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. ]

14. In the present case, 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 of IPC. Specific overt acts were

not attributed against the petitioner.

15. Itis 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.

16. A perusal of the complaints lodged by respective complainants, shows that the name of petitioner is not reflected. Even as per the prosecution case, basing on confession made by other accused regarding the role of petitioner, petitioner was arrayed as accused in the above

crimes.

17. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar', while dealing with the confessional statements made by the accused persons before a

police officer, the Supreme Court held as under:

"7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in

charge of the Godda Town Police. Station where the offence was

registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was

= 4

3 (1998) 8 SCC 13077 | 2

registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police

officer after the investigation had started."

18. A perusal of the complaint discloses that initially, the petitioners' names were not refiected, but as per the confession statements of the other accused, the petitioners' names are

reflected in the above crime

19. Considering the facts of this case, since the name of the petitioner doesn't find place in compliant, no specific overt act was attributed against the petitioner and extra judicial confession is weak piece of evidence, this Court deems that it is a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

20. With regard to the contention of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, relying on the judgment cited supra, 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

po made applicable at this stage and his request to impose costs

cannot b® considered. |

21. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and considering the submissions of both the learned Counsel and in similar matters this Court has granted pre-arrest bail, this Court feels it appropriate to consider granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners herein on the following conditions, by duly taking the apprehension raised by the Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration:

(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 likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Amalapuram Taluq Police station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.126 of 2022 of Amalapuram Taluq

Police Station;

(ii) On such release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, Amalapuram Talug Police Station once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 9.00 a.m. and 06.00 pm for a period of eight weeks or till the date of filing of the charge

sheet, whichever is earlier;

(iii) The petitioners shall not argctly 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 petitioners shall not leave the limits of police station

without intimating to the police till filing of charge sheet.

Further, the petitioners: shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and any infraction of the same 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.

"\Sd/-M.SRINIVAS-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// . pb _ SECTION OFFICER

for FAQDJID LPAI PNbe ws crs

4.The Station House Officer, Amalauram Taluq Police Station,

Konasema District.

2.Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati(OUT)

3.One CC to M/s. P. Anitha, Advocate(OPUC)