Yalla Radha Krishna Yalla Radha, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5864 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6725 of 2022

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), by the

petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail.


2.    Crime No.126 of 2022 of Amalapuram Taluq Police

Station is registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 452, 436, 353,

332, 427, 188 & 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, Sections 3

and 4 of the 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. The petitioner herein was arrayed as A-29.


3.    The above crime was registered basing on the report

lodged by Paradesi Ande, SI of Police, Amalapuram Taluq

police station with regard to the incident that took place on

24.05.2022    pursuant   to   the     notification   issued   by   the

Government by changing the name of Konaseema District as

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.
                                   2


4.       The case of the prosecution in brief is 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 together for submitting objections pursuant to

issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of

name of Konaseema District by violating the proceedings

issued 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.


5.       Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the

way to Collectorate when the Police were discharging their

duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and burnt BVC

collage bus which was used as transport vehicle for the Police.


6.       Further when 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.
                                   3


7.    Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra

Vanthena), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and

set fire to the buses.


8.    The mob further moved towards the house of MLA and

pelted stoned on the house due to which glasses were

damage. When cousin of MLA tried to pacify the matter and

while he was taking video of the situation, the mob poured

petrol on him, but he managed to escape. Then the mob

entered into the house of MLA, set fire to the motorcycles and

entire furniture in the house including house.

9.    Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the respondent-state.

10. 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

Crl.P.Nos.6604 and 6617 of 2022 as well as other crimes, no

prejudice words be caused even if no notice is served on the

victim.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was shown as accused along with others in the

above said crime but he did not participate in the alleged mob

and he did not commit any offence as alleged in the crime.

The petitioner is falsely implicated in the said crime without

any basis with an intention to harass him and out of political

antagonism. He further submits that the present crime was

registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of

I.P.C. apart from many other offences without there being any

participation of petitioner whatsoever with an evil intention to

arrest the petitioner. In view of lack of any specific evidence

or assertions by the de facto complainant or from the

statements of the witnesses against the petitioner, the

ingredients of Section 307 of I.P.C. are not at all attracts

against the petitioner and omni bus allegations against

hundreds of people, who did not participate in the agitation,

does not constitute the offence punishable under Section 307

of I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

the co-accused whose name was found placed in the

complaint, has been granted pre-bail by this Court vide its

order, dated 17.08.2022, in Crl.P.No.5914 of 2022. Hence,

the petitioner is entitled for pre-arrest bail with reasonable

conditions.

12. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor has

contended that the petitioner is identified as one of the

participants as per data collected from print, electronic media

and footage of CC TV Cameras and videos and his name is

mentioned along with many others by the de facto

complainant in his report. In the mob the petitioner is also

one of the member, who damaged the public property i.e.,

glasses of the Ambedkar Bhavan and pelted stones against

the police personnel and also a private bus was set to fire,

which was meant for police bandobasth and he also involved

in other sequences of offences took place in furtherance of the

present incident. The investigation is going on. He further

submits that in view of the facts stated above, the petitioner

cannot be granted anticipatory bail since the offences are

grave in nature and there is possibility of influence of other

witnesses. As such the present criminal petition is liable to be

dismissed.

13. 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

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

granting bail to the petitioner, 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......"

14. 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

petitioner has 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.

15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors2

laid the following principles which are to be

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

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.

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."

16. 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

submission of representations. In pursuance of the same

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

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.

17. 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.

18. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to

attract Section 147 of IPC, there should unlawful assembly.

For better appreciation it is appropriate to extract Section 141

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.

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.

19. Thus, there must be unlawful assembly as defined under

Section 141 of IPC for attracting offences under Section 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.

20. The other contention raised by learned Special Assistant

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.]

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Considering the facts of this case, the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are

no specific overt acts or specific commission of any

act/omission by the petitioner either as per the de facto

complainant in his report or in the statement made by the

accused, except mention of name along with others and there

is some force in the said submissions and since no specific

overt act was attributed against each of the petitioner and on

same footing this Court granted pre-arrest bail in

Crl.P.Nos.5912 and 5914 of 2022 vide its order, dated

17.08.2022, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-

arrest bail to the petitioner by duly taking the apprehensions

made by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into

consideration with the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner/accused No.29 shall be released on

bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.126

of 2022 of Amalapuram Taluq Police Station, East Godavari

District, on condition of executing a self bond for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum

each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of

Amalapuram Taluq Police Station, East Godavari District.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House

Officer, Amalapuram Taluq Police Station, East Godavari

District once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 10.00

am and 12 noon till filing charge sheet.

ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the

investigation and he shall make himself available to the

Investigating Officer whenever required;

iii) The petitioner 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 petitioner shall scrupulously comply with

the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the

above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails

cancellation of bail and in such case prosecution shall move

appropriate application for such cancellation.

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 findings

in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for

the limited purpose of considering bail in the above crime and

shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date : 05.09.2022

SPP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6725 of 2022

Date : 05.09.2022

SPP