Thoti Manjunath Manju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7741 AP

                                   1


         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

      CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 5493 AND 5494 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

      These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 437 & 439 of

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

petitioner/A3 and petitioner/A4 respectively, in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on

the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Chittoor, concerned to Crime No.130 of 2015 of Chittoor I Town

Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offence punishable

under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 301 read with 511 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 25-1(b) & 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

      2. The petitioners in these Criminal Petitions are accused/A-3 and

A-4 in Sessions Case No.110 of 2016 and both these petitions are filed

for grant of bail, hence they are being heard and disposed of by this

common order.

      3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 17.11.2015 at

11.45 a.m., while Smt. Katari Anuradha, Mayor of Chittoor Municipal

Corporation and her husband Katari Mohan were in the Chambers of

Mayor, Chittoor Municipal Corporation talking with Deputy Mayor and

others, A-1 to A-4 along with some other accused entered into the

Chambers of Mayor, A1 & A2 were wearing burqas, A-1 removed burqa
                                       2


and shot at her with a pistol on the frontal bone and she fell down

instantaneously and thereafter A-1 and A-2 pointed out fire arms

towards Katari Mohan (Deceased No.2) and then there was struggle

between the persons present there and A-1 and A-2 and in that

struggle the burkha of A-2 was removed. When V. Sateesh-L.W.1, who

was in the Mayor's chamber, came to the rescue of Katari Mohan, A-4

hacked L.W.1 on his back with dagger, while A-2 fired with his air pistol

towards Katari Mohan (Deceased No.2). Meanwhile Katari Mohan ran

towards the council conference hall, then, A-5, who was at the entry

door of the Mayor's P.A. room, alerted and shouted that Katari Mohan

(Deceased No.2) was escaping. Then A-1 to A-5 chased Katari Mohan in

the council conference hall. There, A-4 pushed down the said Katari

Mohan and stabbed him with the dagger, while A-3 hacked on his neck

4 or 5 times with the sickle. After commission of the offence, A-1 to A-5

retreated towards the office of the Health Officer situated in the ground

floor of the same building and escaped. After the incident, the injured

were shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment where the

Mayor Katari Anuradha was declared brought dead and later Katari

Mohan succumbed to injuries. Hence the above crime was registered

against the petitioners and others.
                                     3


      4. One V. Satheesh, who is L.W.1/ injured witness/ de facto

complainant in S.C.No.110 of 2016 got filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 in both

these Criminal Petitions under Section 482 of CrPC to implead him as

respondent No.2 to these Criminal Petitions. Both the petitions are

allowed permitting the petitioner therein to come on record as

respondent No.2.

5. Heard Sri D. Vijaya Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners/ A-3 & A-4, Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, and Sri Posani

Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, for Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2.

6. Sri D.Vijaya Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners/A-3 & A-4, in elaboration, would submit that the petitioners

are innocent of the crime and they were not at all present at the date

and time of the alleged incident, but they were falsely implicated in this

case due to political pressure. He would further submit that the

investigation conducted by the police is biased, unfair and perfunctory.

He would further submit that, the alleged incident is said to have been

occurred at 12.30 p.m. witnessed by around 20 witnesses including

Municipal officials, but the FIR came to be registered at 7.30 p.m. that

too after the police reached the scene offence and conducted

investigation. The delay in lodging FIR is a clear indication that it was

outcome of consultations and confabulations by implicating the

petitioners falsely in this case to take political vengeance against the

accused.

The learned counsel would further submit that the observation

mediatornama shows that the entire municipal corporation office

premises was under C.C. TV surveillance including the points of ingress

and egress. Thus, CC TV footage would be the best evidence available

to the police to prove the involvement of the petitioners and other

accused in this Crime. However, for the reasons best known, the police

did not conduct any investigation in that direction and did not collect

any CC TV footage. This clearly suggests that the investigation is faulty

and the prosecution wants to implicate the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 and

other accused in this case, because they are unable to find out the real

culprits.

The learned counsel would further submit that, during the course

of investigation, the police obtained fingerprints of the inmates of the

Mayor's office to compare them with the chance prints of the culprits

and prepared a list of those inmates of the office. The said list does not

contain the name of L.W.1/de facto complainant/respondent No.2 as

one of the inmates of the Mayor's office at the time of the alleged

occurrence. Hence, the presence of the respondent No.2 in the Mayor's

office, his witnessing the crime and receiving injuries in the said

incident is doubtful and this clearly points out that the de facto

complainant is a planted witness only with a view to implicate the

petitioners and other accused in this crime.

The learned counsel would further submit that the Investigating

Officer addressed a letter to the Medical officer, Government

Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor to preserve the dead body of Katari

Anuradha in Mortuary shed for conducting autopsy stating that on

17.11.2015 at about 11.30 A.M. 'some unknown assailants' trespassed

into the Municipal Corporation Office, Chittoor and opened fire. The said

letter contains the endorsement of the Medical Officer 'permitted' with

date and time as '17/11/2015 at 6.10 p.m.'. Hence, it is evident that the

crime was perpetuated by some unknown assailants, but the petitioners

were falsely implicated in this crime.

The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners/A3

and A4 along with A-2 took asylum in Chittoor Police Station after the

alleged incident, apprehending attack by the followers of the deceased

as is emanated from the mahazar dated 24.11.2015. It is further

submitted that the deceased No.2-Katari Mohan has several enemies

and he is involved in many criminal cases including the offence under

Section 302 IPC. Somehow, the police at the instance of the deceased

family members and political supporters falsely implicated the

petitioners in this case.

The learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution

party bent upon protracting commencement of trial in this case by filing

frivolous petitions one after another with the prime object of confining

the petitioners inside the jail as long as possible without the trial being

commenced and concluded. He would further submit that post

conviction judicial custody must neither punitive nor preventative and

by keeping the petitioners inside, the prosecution wants to deprive

them of valuable right to defend their case effectively.

The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners

have been in jail since more than 6 ½ years, i.e. to say that they have

served nearly half of the statutory period of conviction, if at all they are

convicted. He would further submitted that trial has not been

commenced yet and more than 130 witnesses are to be examined and

the same would take considerable time and if bail is not granted, the

petitioners would be deprived of their valuable right of liberty.

The learned counsel would further submit that the co-accused/

A2, A5 and A6 have been enlarged on bail and the petitioners/A-3 and

A-4 are entitled for the same relief on the principle of parity. It is stated

that the petitioners are law abiding citizens, they will cooperate with

trial and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and prayed to

enlarge the petitioners on bail.

7. Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor would submit that specific overt acts of killing the deceased

No.2 and causing injuries to the de facto complainant/L.W.1 are

attributed against the petitioners/A-3 and A-4. It is further submitted

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to the co-

accused/A6 has directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a

period of one year and hence it is not desirable to grant bail to the

petitioners/ A-3 and A-4.. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, for Sri P. Sai

Surya Teja, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, would submit that

the overt act attributed against the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 is that they

chased Katari Mohan (Deceased No.2), A-4 pushed him down and

stabbed him with the dagger and A-3 hacked him on his neck 4 or 5

times with the sickle and when the de facto complainant/ respondent

No.2 came to his rescue, A-4 hacked him with dagger. The learned

senior counsel would further submit that the period of incarceration

cannot be made sole ground to grant bail in heinous crimes and that

too in view of the fact that the accused in this case are responsible for

the delay occasioned in commencement of trial by frivolous petitions

one after the other.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that the role

attributed to the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 in commission of offence

stands on different footing to that of the role attributed to the other

accused that were granted bail and thus the principle of parity cannot

be applied.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that,

immediately after the incident, the injured persons including the de

facto complainant/L.W.1/respondent No.2 were shifted to hospital.

Hence the delay in lodging FIR and non-inclusion of name of L.W.1 as

one of the inmates in the list prepared by the police, cannot be viewed

with suspicion and they by no means are sufficient to suggest false

implication of the petitioners/A-3 and A-4.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that the

petitioners cannot claim principle of parity in view of the specific

allegations made against them in commission of the crime.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that some of the

accused in this case, after they were released on bail, threatened the

investigating officers-L.W.121 and L.W.122 and Crime Nos.78 & 79 of

2019 were registered in that regard. In view of the same, if bail is

granted to the petitioners, there would be potential threat to the life

and liberty of victims/witnesses in this case.

The learned counsel would submit that the petitioners/A-3 and A-

4 along with other co-accused committed murder of the Mayor of

Chittoor District and her husband in Mayor's office in broad day light in

the presence of more than about 20 eyewitnesses and hence the

petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his

contention that, in bail application the petitioners can rely on

documents, which are not part of the charge sheet, relied on the

decision in Mayank Singhvi vs. State1.

10. In view of the observations made in the above citation, in

bail application, the petitioners/accused are entitled to rely on the

documents, which are not part of the charge sheet. Thus, the

material papers filed on behalf of the petitioners are also taken into

consideration.

11. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it is appropriate

to advert to the well established principles of law while dealing with

petitions filed for grant of bail.

. 2019 LawSuit(Del) 1924

12. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an

application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the charge;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

13. It is an established principle of law that object of bail is to

secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by

reasonable amount of bail and the object of bail is neither punitive

nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a

punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person

will stand his trial when called upon. It is also an established principle

of law that while considering the question of grant of bail, court

should avoid consideration of details of the evidence as it is not a

relevant consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of

decisions has reiterated that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an

exception and that refusal to bail is a restriction on the personal

liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution.

14. Now, coming to the facts of the case, this case has been

registered on the statement given by the second respondent, who had

received injuries in the incident and who was shifted to hospital

immediately after the occurrence. Hence, the contentions advanced by

the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding delay in lodging First

Information Report and non-inclusion of his name in the inmates list

prepared by police, cannot be gone into in detail at this stage, keeping

in view the settled principle of law that while considering the question

of grant of bail, court should avoid consideration of details of the

evidence and exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be

avoided.

15. As seen from the record, specific overt acts of killing Katari

Mohan (deceased No.2) and causing severe injuries to L.W.1/de facto

complainant/ respondent No.2 are attributed against the petitioners/A-3

and A-4.

16. The co-accused/ A-2, A-5 were granted bail by this Court,

whereas the co-accused/A-6 was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. However, the same cannot at all be a ground to grant bail to the

petitioners/A-3 and A-4, since the overt acts attributed against them

stand altogether on a different footing. Thus, principles of parity cannot

be applied.

17. The petitioners have been in jail since more than 6 ½ years.

It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that more than 130 witnesses have to be examined and trial of the case

has not yet been commenced and thus conclusion of the trial would

take considerable time. In this regard, it is also relevant to note that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to the co-accused/A-6 while

taking note of the factum of non-commencement of trial so far, has

directed the trial Court to control the dilatory tactics of any of the

parties and all steps must be taken to ensure that post trial, the

judgment of the trial court is available within a period of one year from

the date of communication of this order. Thus, the apprehension of the

learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is unfounded.

18. Though liberty of the individual is an invaluable right, but at

the same time while considering the application for bail, Courts cannot

lose sight of serious nature of the accusations against an accused and

potential threat to the life and liberty of the victim/witnesses. The

record discloses that co-accused in this case threatened the

investigating officers and two crimes vide Crime Nos.78 & 79 of 2019

were registered in this regard. In view of the same, it is not at all

desirable to consider the request of the petitioners for grant of bail.

19. In view of the above and keeping in view the nature of the

offence being heinous and as there is potential threat to the life and

liberty of the victim/witnesses and also taking into consideration the

observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to A-6

that the trial Court must take all steps to ensure that judgment is

available within a period of one year, this Court is not inclined to grant

bail to the petitioners/A-3 and A-4.

20. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated: 12.10.2022.

RR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

DISMISSED

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.5493 & 5494 OF 2022

Date : 12.10.2022

RR