Tammana Somana Veera Venkata ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5669 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.6418 OF 2022
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking regular

bail by the petitioners/Accused Nos.229 and 247 in connection

with 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

r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 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 the Driver, APSRTC, the present

crime was registered.

3. Heard Sri K.Satyanandam, 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 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 the present crime. It is also

contended that some accused in other crimes registered in

connection with the same incident were granted regular as well

as anticipatory bails. It is also contended that the petitioners

are accused in other crimes and basing on the PT warrants, they

were arrested and they are languishing in jail and requested to

enlarge the petitioners on bail and they are ready to abide any

conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor submitted that the involvement of the petitioners are

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 India 1 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

petitioners' names were not reflected, but as per the confession

statements of the other accused, the petitioners' names are

reflected in the above crimes.

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

7. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar2, 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 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."

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that petitioners herein are falsely implicated in the present

crime 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 his leaders.

9. The learned Special Assistant 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.

(1998) 8 SCC 130

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. On perusal of the material on record, considering the

submissions of 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 grant bail to the petitioners,

however, on certain conditions.

14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed on the

following conditions.

(i) The petitioners/A-229 and 247 in connection with Crime

No.140 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station shall be

released on bail on their executing self bonds for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like

sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Junior Civil

Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram;

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer,

Amalapuram Town Police Station twice in a week i.e. on every

Monday and Thursday between 9.00 AM and 12.00 noon, till filing

of the charge sheet;

(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 any infraction of the same 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 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.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated : 18.08.2022 KA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6418 OF 2022

Dated : 29.08.2022 KA