R. Subramanyam Mani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7442 AP

                                    1


         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

            CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7769 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of

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

petitioner/A6, in Crime No.129 of 2022 of Ramakuppam Police Station,

Chittoor District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections

307, 324, 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. 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 petitioner and

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.

3. 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.

4. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel would 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 petitioner 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 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 petitioner that he

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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 has been languishing in

jail since 27.08.2022 in Crime No.130 of 2022 and he was produced on

P.T.Warrant in this case on 08.09.2022. He further contended that the

petitioner was granted bail in Cr.No.130 of 2022 and so also the other

accused in this crime were granted bail by this Court. The petitioner is

law-abiding citizen and he 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.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor would 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 Maharashtra1.

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

petitioner 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 petitioner

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

. (2004) 9 SCC 31

overt acts have been attributed against the petitioner. The investigation

is at crucial stage and if the petitioner is granted bail, he 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.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. Perused the report and considered the submissions made by

both the learned counsel. The petitioner has been in judicial custody

since 27.08.2022 in Cr.No.130 of 2022 of Ramakuppam Police Station

and on PT Warrant he was remanded in this case. The FIR does not

contain any averment regarding obstruction caused by the petitioner 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 stones 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.

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

judicial remand of the petitioner 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 and since some

of the co-accused were granted bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail

to the petitioner, however, by taking care of the apprehension of the

learned Public Prosecutor, on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall make themselves available to the investigating officer and shall report before him as and when directed for the purpose of investigation

(iv) 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 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 Petition is allowed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated: 28.09.2022.

SPP

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

ALLOWED

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7769 of 2022

Date : 28.09.2022

SPP