Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kasetti Sreenivasulu Peddireddy Gari ... vs The State Of Ap on 19 August, 2024
APHC010337822024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5433/2024
Between:
KasettiSreenivasulu @ PeddireddyGariSrinivasulu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. N RANGA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), has been filed by the
Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime
No.63 of 2024 of Dharmavaram II Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District.
2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner/A.2 and others for the
offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 427, 379, 109, 506 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 03.05.2024, at about 7:30
P.M. in Dharmavaram Town, the defacto complainant went to a junction to get
a cup of tea. While there, Kethireddy Venkataramireddy, MLA of
Dharmavaram (A.5), arrived with his followers. Venkataramireddy inquired
about the defacto complainant's caste. After the complainant revealed his
caste, Venkataramireddy used abusive language towards him and incited his
followers, namely Maruthi (A.4), Vijay Gowd (A.1), Kasetti Sreenivas (A.2),
and Amarnath Reddy (A.3), to attack the defacto complainant. Following this,
A.1 to A.4 assaulted the complainant with sticks, stones, and fists, causing
contusions and damaging his cell phone. When Sreenivasulu intervened to
help the defacto complainant, A.1 to A.4 also assaulted him, causing
contusions and taking his cell phone. The defacto complainant later reported
the incident to the Dharmavaram II Town Police Station.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 submits that the defacto
complainant sustained only simple injuries during the incident. Learned
counsel further submits that, due to political bias, the case was filed under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, even though the defacto complainant's
injuries were not severe. Additionally, it is stated that the defacto complainant
was discharged from the hospital on the same day he was admitted, without
receiving any treatment.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent-State
opposed to grant bail to the Petitioner/A.2 on the ground of investigation is
pending; the ingredients of the section 307 of IPC are attracted to the facts of
the present case; and if the Petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is
every possibility of tampering with the evidence.
6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their
contentions on par with the submissions presented in the Petition as well as in the
report. Consequently, the contentions presented by both learned counsels need not
be reproduced.
7. In Mahipal V. Rajesh 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is
necessary for the Court, while considering a bail application, to assess
(2020) 2 SCC 118
whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime.
8. It is settled law that while considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role
of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. In the
event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution,
the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of
anticipatory bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect
the personal liberty of a citizen. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is
the rule and the jail is the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and it
should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is
imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case.
9. This Court views the power to authorize detention as a very solemn
function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be
exercised with great care and caution. The attitude to arrest first and then
proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool for police
officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motives.
10. The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proven. As a
presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights
including the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
11. In light of the above settled principles, I have thoroughly perused the
material on record. According to the report, the incident occurred during an
election procession led by the then MLA, Kethireddy Venkataramireddy (A.5)
in Dharmavaram. The allegations state that A.5 directed Maruthi (A.4), Vinay
Gowd (A.1), Kasetti Srinivas (A.2) (the petitioner in this case), and Amarnath
Reddy (A.3) to eliminate the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that
these individuals attacked the defacto complainant using stones, sticks, and
fists, and also damaged his cell phone.
12. The material on record indicates that the incident appears to have
occurred in the heat of the moment. The incident took place on 03.05.2024,
with the Parliamentary and Assembly elections scheduled for 13.05.2024.
Given the political animosity between the parties involved, the possibility of
implicating the innocent individuals cannot be ruled out.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific
allegations have been made against the petitioner beyond the general claim
that he kicked the defacto complainant with his hands and legs. Learned
counsel suggests that these accusations might be exaggerated or fabricated
to involve more individuals in the case, especially given the upcoming
elections on 13.05.2024. Additionally, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
confirmed, upon inquiry, that there are no antecedents reported against the
petitioner.
14. The material on record does not show that the defacto complainant
sustained any injuries that pose a serious threat to his life. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the defacto complainant
received outpatient treatment, and this fact is not seriously disputed, as no
medical evidence has been presented to challenge it. Furthermore, the
prosecution has not provided evidence suggesting that the injuries sustained
by the defacto complainant in the alleged incident pose a threat to his life.
15. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the
exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram V. Directorate of
Enforcement2, considering all the earlier judgments, observed that the basic
jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in as much as the grant of bail
is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure that, the accused has the
opportunity of securing a fair trial.
16. It is not the Prosecution's case that the Petitioner did not cooperate with
the investigation, and he is not available for interrogation. There is no
indication of a likelihood that the Petitioner would abscond from the jurisdiction
(2019) 9 SCC 66 : (2019) 16 Scale 870
of the Court. The Petitioner has expressed willingness to cooperate with the
investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
The likelihood of levying accusations with the intention of harming or
embarrassing the Petitioner through potential arrest is not improbable,
especially in the context of political disputes.
17. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and the existing disputes
between the parties, this Court believes that even if the Petitioner is granted
pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that he
will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the
Petitioner has the permanent abode at Dharmavaram. It is not the
Prosecution's case that the Petitioner would flee away from the jurisdiction of
the Court. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the Petitioner in
the nature of the accusations. Thus, there is a prima facie case in favour of
the Petitioner. Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner would not impede the
ongoing investigation.
18. Upon careful review of the available material, as there is no risk of
interference with the ongoing investigation by the Petitioner, this Court finds
that anticipatory bail can be granted to the Petitioner/A.2 under certain
conditions:
i) In the event of his arrest, the petitioner/A.2 shall be enlarged on
bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating
Officer.
ii) The petitioner/A.2 shall attend before the concerned Investigating
Officer once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 AM
and 01.00 PM for a period of three (3) months from today.
iii) The petitioner/A.2 shall cooperate with the investigation and he
shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as
and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 19.08.2024
MS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5433 of 2024
Date: 19.08.2024
MS
