Gownivaari Srinivasulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7317 AP

                                    1


         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

      CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7226 and 7385 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/A1 and petitioner/A7 respectively, in Crime No.129 of 2022 of

Ramakuppam Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 353 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

      2. The petitioners in these Criminal Petitions are accused in the

same crime and hence they are being heard and disposed of by this

common order.

      3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that while the de facto

complainant along with other staff was discharging bandobust duty on

the eve of visit of Former Chief Minister to Kuppam, at about 5.30 p.m.

on Konganapalli-Kollupalli village road, TDP leaders and cadre tried to

attack the said Vinod and others in relation to a dispute regarding

removal of YSRCP flags, who were standing near the house of one

Suresh Reddy and at that time the de facto complainant and his staff

requested TDP leaders not to make galata and then the petitioners and
                                         2


others did not heed them and asked the police to leave the place and

so stating they started pelting stones on YSRCP sympathizers uttering

to kill the police people first and when the de facto complainant and

other police staff tried to stop the incident, the de facto complainant

received stone injuries on his back and waist and the stone hurled by A-

1 hit on his leg causing bleeding injury and the stones hurled by the

other co-accused caused bleeding injuries to C.I. of police and other

police personnel. Hence, the above crime was registered.

        4. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, for

Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and         Sri

Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

5. At the outset, Sri Posani Venkareswarlu, learned senior

counsel, in elaboration to what has been raised in the petition

contended that, as many as six (06) crimes were registered in relation

to sequence of events that went on the same day and the petitioners in

both these criminal petitions were shown as accused in all the six

crimes. The petitioners were arrested and they were remanded to

judicial custody in connection with Cr.No.130 of 2022 of Ramakuppam

Police Station. Despite the fact that the petitioners were accused in

other crimes of their police station, the respondent police,

mischievously, did not show the arrest of the petitioners in this crime

(Cr.No.129 of 2022) as well as other crimes only with a view to remand

them in this case after they get bail in Cr.No.130 of 2022. However,

since all the crimes relate to same police station i.e. Ramakuppam P.S.,

the petitioners are deemed to have been custody in other crimes also

and hence this petition filed for grant of regular bail is maintainable. In

support of his contention, the learned senior counsel has relied on the

decisions in Tupakula appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh1,

K.R.Giri Babuv. State of Andhra Pradesh and another2 and

Viswanathan vs.The State of Andhra Pradesh and another3.

6. The learned senior counsel would further submit that, the

ingredients of the FIR do not disclose any offence much less the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC and the same has been included only

to deny the petitioners the benefits of Section 41-A CrPC and also to

deny bail. He would further submit that, intention to kill has to be

ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault

and nature of the injury caused. In the instant case, according to the

prosecution, the weapons of offence are stones and the injuries alleged

. 2002(1) ALD (Crl.) 67 (AP)

. 2019 SCC OnLine AP 115

.(Criminal Petition Nos.10318/2018 and batch)

to have been caused are on non-vital parts of the body. Thus, if the

allegations in the FIR are taken to be true at their face value, at best

they attract the offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC. Further,

no allegation whatsoever is made against the petitioners that they

obstructed the police personnel from discharging their duties and thus

the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC is not attracted to the

present facts of the case.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that when a

large group of people attacks with an intention to kill, the nature of

injuries would not be simple and this also rules out the possibility of any

intention to kill on the part of the petitioners and other co-accused.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that a perusal of

the contents of the FIR would unequivocally shows that this case has

been foisted against the petitioners and others by the de facto

complainant only on the pressure exerted on him by the party in power

for the reason that the accused are sympathizers of opposite political

party. He would further submit that the overt acts attributed against the

petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature. He would further submit

that thereafter substantial part of the investigation is completed.

He further contended that the petitioner in Criminal Petition

No.7226 of 2022 has been languishing in jail since 27.08.2022 &

whereas the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7385 of 2022 has been

languishing in jail since 06.09.2022 in Crime No.130 of 2022 and the

petitioners are law-abiding citizens and they will abide by any conditions

imposed by this Court and they will cooperate with the investigation.

On the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner

sought for grant of bail and prayed to allow this petition.

7. On the other hand, Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Public

Prosecutor, would submit that since the petitioners are not arrested and

remanded in this crime, this petition filed for grant of regular bail is not

maintainable and on this count itself these petitions are liable to be

dismissed.

He would further submit that mere intention to kill is sufficient to

attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and nature of

injury and the part of the body whereon it is caused is immaterial. In

support of his contention, reliance is placed in Vasant Vithu Jadhav

vs.State of Maharashtra4.

. (2004) 9 SCC 31

The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that the de

facto complainant in this case is a Police officer and hence no political

affiliations can be attached to him to say that this case is foisted. The

petitioners along with others having been frustrated on account of the

presence of the flags of their opposite party, with a view to eliminate

their political opponents in the village in order to create havoc and to

threaten the sympathizers of their opposite political party, attacked the

sympathizers of their opposite party and tried to kill them and when

the de facto complainant tried to stop the onslaught of the petitioners

and their supporters, they attacked the de facto complainant. Specific

overt acts have been attributed against each of the petitioners. The

investigation is at crucial stage and if the petitioners are granted bail,

they will try to threaten the de facto complainant and other witnesses

connected with this case and impede the progress of investigation.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.

8. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioners makes it clear that if number of cases are registered against

an accused, when he is in custody having been arrested in connection

with one case, he is deemed to be in custody of other cases also

relating to the same police station. In the instant cases also, though the

petitioners were shown arrest in Cr.No.130 of 2022 and they were

remanded to judicial custody, the police did not arrest them in

connection with this crime and also other crimes. The observations

made in the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioners are applicable to the facts of the case. Thus, applying the

principle evolved in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioners, it can be safely held that the petitioners are deemed to

have been in custody in relation to this case also and thus the petitions

filed by them seeking regular bail is maintainable.

9. In the decision relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor

(supra 4), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court, at para-10 , held

thus:

"10. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."

10. The observations of their Lordships in the above decision

shows that mere intention to kill is sufficient and corresponding bodily

injury capable of causing is not essential to constitute an offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC.

11. Perused the report and considered the submissions made by

both the learned counsel. The petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.7226

& 7382 of 2022 have been in judicial custody since 27.08.2022 &

06.09.2022 respectively in Cr.No.130 of 2022 of Ramakuppam Police

Station. The FIR does not contain any averment regarding obstruction

caused by the petitioners to the de facto complainant and thus, prima

facie, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC

are not found. The weapons of offence are stoned and the injuries said

to have been received by the injured are simple and that too on non-

vital parts. Intention to kill is sufficient to constitute the offence under

Section 307 IPC. However, since the contents of the FIR clearly show

that the incident was occurred while the police tried to avert collision of

two warring political groups, it is not at all safe to apply the above said

principle of law at this stage of deciding the application filed for grant of

bail that too in light of the weapons of offence used and the nature of

injuries said to have been received by the injured. It can well be gone

into at the time of appreciating the evidence after full dressed trial. The

judgment relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be

considered while dealing with bail application. At this stage of

considering the bail application, keeping in view the nature of injuries

received and weapons of offence used, this Court prima facie holds that

the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC

are conspicuously absent as of now, and the contents of the FIR at best

would attract the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC.

12. In view of the above, taking into consideration the period of

judicial remand of the petitioners and the nature of injuries alleged to

have been caused to the injured are being simple and on non-vital parts

and as substantial part of the investigation is completed, this Court is

inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, however, by taking care of the

apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the

following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing 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 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam, Chittoor District in connection with Cr.No.129 of 2022 of Ramakuppam Police Station.

(ii) On such release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, Ramakuppam Police Station twice in a month on every

2nd and 4th Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. till filing of charge sheet;

(iii) Apart from that, the petitioners shall make themselves available to the investigating officer and shall report before him as and when directed for the purpose of investigation

(iv) 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 co-operate with the process of investigation.

(v) Any infraction of the above conditions would entail cancellation of bail and the prosecution is at liberty to file application seeking cancellation of bail.

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 criminal petition and shall not have any bearing in any other proceeding.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated: 23.09.2022.

RR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

ALLOWED

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7226 & 7385 of 2022

Date : 23.09.2022

RR