Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thakur Prem Kumar Pandu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7453 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
"Cr.P.C."), by the petitioners seeking regular bail.
2. A Crime No.161 of 2022 of Chilakalapudi Police Station
is registered for the offences punishable under Section 307
read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners herein were
arrayed as A-1 to A-3.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2022 at
about 11.00 p.m., the de facto complainant filed a complaint
alleging that he gave an amount of Rs.9,000/- to 1st
petitioner/A-1, Rs.20,000/- to 2nd petitioner/A-2 and
Rs.17,000/- to 3rd petitioner/A-3 and on 24.07.2022 evening
at about 4.00 p.m., when the petitioners were present near
Sithayyanagar tailor shop, he asked the said amount then the
petitioners took up quarrel with him and A-3 beat him on his
cheek and when neighbours came there, the petitioners fled
away and again on the same day at about 7.00p.m., when the
de facto complainant was attended duty at Chilakalapudi
railway station, the petitioners came to his duty place and
2
questioned him why he asked them for repayment on road
and abused him and caught his shirt and pulled outside from
the railway cabin and beat on cheeks and A-1 caught iron rod
and beat on his head and A-2 and A-3 also beat on his head
and he sustained bleeding injuries and then he was shifted to
Government General Hospital, Machilipatnam for medical
treatment, thereby the petitioners committed the alleged
offence, hence, registered the present case.
4. Heard Sri Akula Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to
what has been raised in the grounds contended that the
ingredients under Section 307 IPC are not found place even if
the allegations in FIR are taken on its face value against the
petitioners. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that to attract Section 307 IPC intention of
murder should be very clear and in support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh and
others1 and particularly draw the attention of this Court at
Para 7 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
"7. On the first question as to acquittal of the
accused under Section 307/149 IPC, some
significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under
Section 307 IPC what the court has to see is,
whether the act irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in that section. The
intention or knowledge of the accused must be such
as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this
ingredient being established, there can be no offence
of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the
intention precedes the act attributed to accused.
Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all
circumstances, and not merely from the
consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon
used, manner in which it is used, motive for the
crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body
where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors
that may be taken into consideration to determine
the intention. In this case, two parties in the course
of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious
and minor. The accused though armed with ballam
never used the sharp edge of it. They used only the
blunt side of it despite they being attacked by the
other side. They suffered injuries but were not
provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the
weapon. It is very very significant. It seems to us
that they had no intention to commit murder. They
(1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 551
had no motive either. The fight as the High Court
has observed, might have been a sudden flare up.
Where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden
quarrel, the conviction under Section 307 is
generally not called for. We, therefore, see no
reason to disturb the acquittal of accused under
Section 307 IPC."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended
that before filing the present application, the petitioners
herein moved Sessions Court, wherein the Sessions Court
dismissed three applications and latest Crl.M.P.No.216 of
2022 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under
SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-X Additional District Judge,
Krishna, Machilipatnam was dismissed vide its orders, dated
13.09.2022, on the ground that there are no changed
circumstances from the date of dismissal of previous bail
petition and investigation is still pending. Learned counsel
further contended that as there are changed circumstances
wherein substantial part of investigation is completed and the
petitioners are languishing in jail since 60 days and they will
abide any conditions imposed by this Court and further they
will cooperate with the investigation and prayed to grant pre-
arrest bail to the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public
Prosecutor, on instructions, contended that FIR is not an
encyclopedia to have all the details and the ingredients of
Section 307 IPC will be made out basing on the evidence and
further submitted that though substantial part of investigation
is completed and awaiting wound certificate. However, in the
event, if pre-arrest bail is granted, the petitioners may not
cooperate with the investigation and may tamper with the
evidence and hamper the process of investigation, hence,
sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Taking the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and the material available on record into
consideration, prima facie the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the ingredients under
Section 307 IPC are not found has some force and the
judgment supra relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is applicable to the facts of the present case and as
the petitioners are languishing in jail since 60 days and as
substantial part of investigation is completed, this Court is
inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by duly
taking the apprehensions made by the learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration with the
following conditions:
i) The petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in crime No.161 of
2022 of Chilakalapudi Police Station, Krishna District are
ordered to be enlarged on bail on their execution of self bond
for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with
two sureties each for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of
the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs
(POA) Act, 1989-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna,
Machilipatnam.
ii) On such release, the petitioners shall appear
before the Station House Officer, Chilakalapudi Police Station,
Krishna District once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between
10.00 am and 12.00 noon till the date of filing of charge
sheet.
(iii) Apart from that the petitioners shall appear before
the Investigating Officer whenever called by the Investigating
Officer for the purpose of investigation;
(iv) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
contact the de facto 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 if there is breach of any of the above
conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails
cancellation of the 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 : 22.09.2022
SPP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7453 of 2022
Date : 22.09.2022
SPP
