Pithani Venkata Ramana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5437 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

          CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6255 & 6256 OF 2022


COMMON ORDER:

      These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 437 & 439 of

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

petitioners/Accused in the following crimes:

      Crime No.140 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East

Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 336, 435, 188 read with 149 of IPC,

Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984

and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861.

      Crime No.141 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East

Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 436, 435 and 188 read with 149 of IPC and

Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861.

      Since the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions are one and the

same and these petitions arise out of the 'Konaseema' incident, they are

heard together and are being disposed of under a common order.


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
                                     2



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 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 police personnel and 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 complaints of the Driver of APSRTC, Amalapuram

Depot and cousin of the Hon'ble MLA, respectively, the above crimes were

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.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that six crimes were

registered in connection with the incident said to have been occurred on

24.05.2022 at Amalapuram i.e. Crime Nos.138, 139, 140 and 141 of 2022

of Amalapuram Town Police Station and Crime Nos.126 and 127 of

Amalapuram Taluq Police Station.

It is stated that initially petitioners' names were not figured in the

said crimes. But, later they were implicated in one crime on the basis of

the confession statement of one of the arrested accused and were

arrested in the said crime on different dates during the months of May

and June, 2022 and their arrest was shown on PT warrants in the

remaining five crimes.

It is also stated that the petitioners approached the Sessions Court

by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.285, 286, 115, 275, 278 & 269 of

2022, respectively and the said petitions were dismissed by the learned

Sessions Judge in view of the gravity of the offences alleged and on the

ground that investigation is still pending.

It is also contended that some of the accused in these crimes and

the other crimes registered in connection with the same incident, were

granted pre-arrest/regular bail and sought to consider the present

petitions also on similar lines, on any conditions that may be imposed.

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

submitted that the petitioners approached the Sessions Court by filing bail

applications and the said bail applications were dismissed in view of the

gravity of the offences alleged.

It is further stated that involvement of the petitioners is evident

from the confession statements of the other arrested accused, CC TV

footages, social media videos and photographs taken at the scene of

offence. It is further submitted that investigation is yet to be completed.

The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, while drawing

attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kodungallu Film Society v. Union of India1, contended that if at all

this Court wants to consider granting bail to the petitioners, costs for

damaging public property may be imposed on them as per the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the said decision

reads as under:

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. ....."

6. A perusal of the complaint discloses that initially the petitioners'

names were not reflected in the above crimes, but, subsequently, they

were implicated on the basis of the confession statement of one of the

arrested accused and were arrested in one crime and shown their arrested

on PT warrant in the other five crimes.

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

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

and other social media platform, which resulted in occurrence of large-

scale violence and execution of other related illegal acts as conspired.

As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners 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.

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 made applicable at this stage and his request

to impose costs cannot be considered.

7. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration

and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners

that in similar matters, this Court has granted bail, this Court feels it

appropriate to consider granting bail to the petitioners herein on the

following conditions, duly considering the apprehension of the learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor:

(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 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, for each crime;

(ii) On release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District, 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 in case of infraction of the same, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of bail.

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 finding in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering bail in the above Criminal Petition and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 22nd August, 2022 GBS