Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Muppalla Venkateswara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 October, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8269 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, „Cr.P.C.‟), seeking
anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/A-23 in Cr.No.118 of 2021 of
Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506, 143, 144, 148
r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, there were
two groups in YSR Congress Party in Narukullapadu Village of
Amaravathi Mandal and the de facto complainant belongs to the
group led by Nalleboina Srinivasa Rao, whereas the accused
belong to the group led by Ravela Sambasiva Rao(A-1). The said
Ravela Sambasiva Rao (A-1) bore grudge on the group led by
Nalleboina Srinivasa Rao on the ground that they did not extend
their support to him in the recent panchayat elections and he
along with his group was waiting for an opportunity to wreck
vengeance. On 03.04.2021, there was swearing in ceremony of
2
Sarpanch and Vice Sarpanch at Panchayat office and A-1 had
sworn as Sarpanch and Nalleboyina Srinivasa Rao has sworn as
Vice Sarpanch of the village on behalf of YSR Congress Party.
Both the groups arranged meals separately for their followers.
While the de facto complainant and his group members, after
having their meal, were going to their houses, the said Ravela
Sambasiva Rao (A-1) along with 50 persons, with an intention to
kill, attacked the de facto complainant and others armed with
stones, sticks, axes and rods, abused them touching their caste
and caused injuries to the de facto complainant and five (05)
others. Basing on the complaint given by the de facto
complainant, the crime was registered against the petitioner and
others.
3. Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor
for the respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is innocent of the offence and he was falsely
implicated in this case, and in fact, the de facto complainant and
his group were the aggressors and they attacked the petitioner
and his group, and in that connection, a case in Cr.No.120 of
3
2021 of Amaravathi Police Station was registered for the offence
under Section 324 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
though ingredients under Section 307 IPC were very much
present against the prosecution party herein, and as a counter
blast, the de facto complainant and his group weaving out a false
story of assault on them, got registered a false case for the
offence under Section 307 IPC and provisions of S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA)
Act.
The learned counsel would further submit that a glance at
the FIR would make it clear that this case is an outcome of
differences in the same political party and the allegations levelled
against the petitioner are bald and omnibus in nature and they do
not attract any offence much less the offences alleged against the
petitioner.
The learned counsel would further submit that some of the
co-accused have been granted regular bail by the learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.647 of 2021 on
12.04.2021 and some of the co-accused have been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5608 of
2022.
4
The learned counsel would further submit that the
petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family and if the
petitioner is arrested, his family would be deprived of their
livelihood and they would be put to starvation.
The learned counsel would further submit that substantial
part of the investigation has already been completed as is evident
from the observations made by the learned IV Additional Sessions
Judge, Guntur while granting bail to the co-accused.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit
that the alleged injured persons have been discharged from the
hospital and they are hale and healthy and attending to their day
to day activities.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit
that the petitioner is law abiding citizen and he would abide by
the conditions imposed by this Court, and that he would neither
tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the process of
investigation and that he would make himself available to the
Investigating Officer and cooperate for investigation.
5
On the above contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner sought pre arrest bail to the petitioner and prayed to
allow the petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public
Prosecutor, would submit that a petition seeking pre-arrest bail is
not maintainable and there is a bar under Section 18 of the
S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA) Act and hence the instant petition is liable to be
dismissed on that ground alone.
The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would
further submit that the investigation is in process and if the
petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he would tamper the
prosecution evidence and he would not cooperate with the
process of investigation.
6. In reply to the contention of the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor in relation to maintainability of pre-arrest bail
application, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India1 and has drawn
attention of this Court to Para-11 of the said judgment, which is
extracted hereunder:
1
. (2020) 4 SCC 727
6
"11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438
CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act.
However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie
case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the
bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We
have clarified this aspect while deciding the review
petitions.."
and contended that the FIR in this case does not show prima
facie case against the petitioner for applicability of the provisions
of the S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA) Act and some of the accused belong to
S.C. Community, hence, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-
A(i) of the Act does not apply to the present facts of the case and
hence this application is maintainable.
7. Perused the record. The First Information Report
discloses that the incident is outcome of previous grudges among
two warring groups belonging to same political party. S.C.
Community people became part of both the groups, as is evident
from the caste certificates of some of the accused placed on
record. Thus, it is hard to believe that the alleged attack is meant
either to beat or insult the persons belong to S.C.community.
Thus, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the FIR does not make out a prima facie case for
applicability of the provisions of S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA) Act and thus,
7
this application filed for grant of pre-arrest bail is maintainable in
light of the decision referred to supra.
The record further discloses that Crime No. 120 of 2021
was registered against the prosecution party herein based on the
report given by one of the accused in this case for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. Some of the co-accused in
this case have been granted regular bail by the learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur on 12.04.2021 in
Crl.M.P.No.647 of 2021 and some of the co-accused have been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Petition
No.5608 of 2022. The observations made by the learned Judge
in the said order would go to show that substantial part of
investigation is completed even by the time of grant of bail way
back on 12.04.2021. The alleged injured persons have been
discharged from the hospital and they are hale and healthy, as
confirmed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
8. In view of the above, taking into consideration the fact
that substantial part of the investigation is completed, this Court
is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. However,
keeping in view the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor, by imposing the following conditions:
8
The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his
arrest in connection with Crime No.118 of 2021 of Amaravathi
Police Station, Guntur District, on his executing personal bond for
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties
for like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer,
Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District. The petitioner shall
attend before the Station House Officer concerned on every
Sunday between 9.00 AM and 12.00 Noon till filing of charge
sheet. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and
shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any of the
prosecution witnesses.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
Date : 27.10.2022
sj
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8269 OF 2022
Date : 27.10.2022
sj
