Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 August, 2024
1
APHC010334982024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5388/2024
Between:
Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. N ASHWANI KUMAR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. The Petitioner/A.24 has filed the Criminal Petition, as per Section 480
and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'),
seeking regular bail concerning Crime No.59 of 2024, registered at the
Karampudi Police Station of Palnadu District.
2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner/A.24 and others for
the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 307, 332, 435, 427 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C.). Subsequently, an
alteration memo, including Section 436 IPC, was filed on 15.05.2024 at 16:00
hours.
3. In brief, it is a case of forming into unlawful assembly, voluntarily
causing hurt, arson, mischief, attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt
to the public servant in the discharge of his duties. On 14.05.2024, at 5:00
PM, after completing his duties at the Karampudi Office, the defacto
complainant, who serves as the Village Revenue Officer in Petasannigandla
Village, Karampudi Mandal, was on his way home. As he passed by the
Y.S.R., statue, he encountered A.1 and several other accused, who had
gathered and allegedly planned to create chaos in the city by targeting
sympathizers of the TDP (Telugu Desam Party) and innocent individuals,
intending to kill any sympathizer with sticks and rods. They proceeded
towards TDP sympathizers, explicitly targeting "Thanda Jani," who managed
to escape. Subsequently, the Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police
received information about an attack involving YSRCP party activists. Upon
arrival at the scene, a YSRCP activist reportedly threw stones at the house of
T.D.P. party sympathizers, one of which hit the Circle Inspector, causing him
to sustain injuries. The situation escalated as YSRCP (Yuvajana Sramika
Rythu Congress Party) activists' allegedly poured petrol on a blue car near the
Check Post, creating panic in the city. They loudly proclaimed, "Evaro okarini
champithe kani, mana joliki rakunda untaru". Further chaos ensued as they
vandalized shops, houses belonging to TDP sympathizers, and TDP offices.
Additionally, they destroyed bikes parked at various locations in Karampudi
village.
4. The learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner/A.24 asserts that the
Petitioner is an innocent and that the ingredients of the alleged offences do
not attract against him. LWs.1 to 9 do not implicate the Petitioner's name, and
the remand reports fail to provide any material linking the Petitioner to the
crime. The medical certificate pertaining to LW.10/C.I. of Police is claimed to
be fabricated. The incident occurred on 15.05.2024, yet no records identifying
the Petitioner as a suspect were made until 23.05.2024. The allegations are
said to contradict initial witness statements as of 05.06.2024. The Petitioner,
elected as M.L.A. of Macherla Constituency in 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2019,
faces charges allegedly driven by political motives. Petitioner has been
detained in Central Prison, Nellore, since 26.06.2024 and is willing to adhere
to any conditions set by this Hon'ble Court.
5. Learned Special Counsel representing the Respondent-State has
submitted a counter, refuting all the allegations presented in the petition. The
contentions outlined in the Counter need not be reiterated, as they essentially
mirror the report's content dated 15.05.2024. Additionally, the Counter asserts
that the Petitioner had previously filed anticipatory bail applications in
Crl.P.Nos.3775, 3788, 3789, and 3790 of 2024, which this Court observed the
crimes alleged against the Petitioner to be heinous and dismissed the
applications. The Petitioner had not cooperated with the Police authorities at
the time of investigation and had not answered any query posed by the Police
authorities. The incident described is a heinous crime, as the Petitioner and
his accomplices attempted to immolate a person in a car, indiscriminately
assaulted anyone who intervened, and even attacked a police officer on duty.
The Petitioner showed a clear intent to commit further crimes when he
assaulted a person outside the Court while being brought in for remand. This
incident, recorded as Crime No.134 of 2024 at Macherla Town P.S., is under
investigation. Emphasizing the Petitioner's status as a former Member of the
Legislative Assembly and alleged involvement in violent activities, granting
anticipatory bail could potentially lead to further criminal activities. The
Petitioner is implicated in 14 cases, underscoring concerns about his potential
to engage in additional unlawful activities if released.
6. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
Rama Lakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A.24,
and Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Special Counsel, representing the
Respondent-State (vide G.O.Rt.No.577, dt.12.06.2024). Both sides reiterated
their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and
Counter. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned Counsel need not
be reproduced.
7. The learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner contends that
the Petitioner had previously sought bail from the Sessions Court, however,
those petitions were dismissed; the sessions Court should have granted
regular bail to the Petitioner after applying the requisite triple test, which would
establish that there is no risk of flight, no possibility of tampering with evidence,
and no likelihood of influencing witnesses. Therefore, he prayed that the
present petition be allowed and the Petitioner be released on bail.
8. The learned Special Counsel representing the Respondent contends
that the gravity of the offence and the role of the Accused should be
considered in the matter of bail. He further argued that the Petitioner's
involvement has been sufficiently established, and given the heinous nature of
the offence, the Petitioner is not entitled to any concession regarding bail.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court outlined the parameters for granting bail in
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar.1, as under:
12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief, which necessarily means that
such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not
as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts
of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to
case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering
the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;
(a) While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind factors such as the
nature of accusations, the severity of the punishment, if the accusations
entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the
accusations;
(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the
apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also
weigh with the Court in the matter of granting bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt there ought to be always a
prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
MANU/SC/0924/2023
(d) Frivolity of 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 have an order of bail.
10. In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus the State of Uttar Pradesh2, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters,
which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for
regular bail or anticipatory bail as under:
"11. Mr R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the
private respondents, said that the Court, while granting bail is not required
to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the
prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail
matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the Prosecution or the accused
at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion,
is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind
taking into consideration the well-known parameters including:
(i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity
of the offence;
(ii) The severity of punishment;
(iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused
can exercise influence on the Victim and the witnesses or not;
(iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the
victims/witnesses;
(v) Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings;
(vi) Possibility of accused tampering with evidence;
(vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the due course of justice;
(viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail;
(ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge
including frivolity of the charge;
(x) The different and distinct facts of each case and the nature of
substantive and corroborative evidence.
11. I have gone through the case diary and the material on record, including
the First Information Report (F.I.R.) filed by the VRO and the statement
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
12. Although the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has expounded
arguments contending that this case is foisted against the Petitioner, formerly
MANU/SC/0872/2023
an M.L.A. with the YSRCP. This maneuver, it is argued, is a calculated
attempt to subject the Petitioner to harassment and humiliation through the
deliberate distortion of factual circumstances.
13. This Court, having given due consideration, holds the view that it is
unnecessary to delve into the contentious issue of the motives ascribed to the
Police officials. This Criminal Petition must be adjudicated based solely on its
merits, without regard to the underlying motivations attributed to either party.
14. As seen from the record, V.R.O-II of Karampudi submitted a report to
the Station House Officer of Karampudi Police Station at 00:30 AM on
15.05.2024 concerning the incident in question. The report indicates that the
incident occurred on 14.05.2024 at 5:00 PM, with the information being
received at the police station at 00:30 hours on 15.05.2024. The report,
however, does not elucidate the role of the Petitioner (A.24) in the commission
of the alleged offence. LWs.1 to 6, who were purportedly present at the scene,
did not implicate the Petitioner in their statements recorded by the
Investigating Officer on 15.05.2024. LWs.7 and 8, whose statements were
recorded on 21.05.2024, mentioned observing several individuals travelling in
Scorpio vehicles along a road leading to the check post centre in Karampudi
village. Their statements, however, do not indicate the Petitioner's presence in
any of these vehicles. LWs.7 and 8 are also listed as eyewitnesses to the
incident. Conversely, LW.10's statement, recorded on 25.05.2024, alleges the
involvement of A.24 and his younger brother in the offence. On 29.05.2024,
the Sub Divisional Police Officer reexamined LWs.1 to 6, who then made
additional attributions implicating the Petitioner and his brother.
15. The Prosecution contends that the involvement of A.24 and his brother
was established by the confessional statements of A.21 and A.22. The
remand report indicates that A.21 and A.22 were apprehended on 23.05.2024
at 2:00 PM, and the confession mahazar dated 23.05.2024 was included with
the remand report. In contrast, the Petitioner has presented a medical
certificate from the Civil Assistant Surgeon at the Area Hospital,
Narasaraopeta, which asserts that A.21 and A.22 were arrested on
16.05.2024 at 7:00 PM.
16. The Petitioner's Counsel has submitted that an interim application, I.A.
No.1 of 2024, was filed before this Court concerning F.I.R.Nos.53 of 2024 and
52 of 2024 seeking to release the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.
In response, this Court passed a common order dated 28.05.2024, observed
that a memo implicating the Petitioner as A.24 in Cr. No.59 of 2024 was filed
with the concerned Court on 23.05.2024 in Cr. No.59 of 2024, the medical
certificate for A.21 and A.22 indicated their arrest on 16.05.2024 at 7:00 PM,
whereas the remand report showed their production before the Court on
23.05.2024. This Court found this discrepancy to be prima facie in violation of
the Criminal Procedure Code and the Supreme Court's ruling in D.K. Basu v.
State of West Bengal 3 . Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor informed the
Court that a memo implicating the Petitioner as A.24 was purportedly filed with
the Magistrate Court on 22.05.2024. However, it was later brought to the
Court's attention that the memo was actually filed at 8:00 PM on 23.05.2024,
along with the remand report for A.21 and A.22.
17. The Petitioner contends that he has been implicated in this case as this
Court had previously granted interim protection to him. It is important to note
that the crime in question has been registered against the Petitioner and
others under Section 307 of I.P.C. The Prosecution alleges that the Circle
Inspector of Police sustained injuries during the incident. As a senior officer, it
would be expected that he would have been readily available in the office;
however, the wound certificate dated 26.05.2024, issued by Dr. S. Lakshmi
Manasa, reveals that the Circle Inspector was first seen by her on 14.05.2024,
with the examination commencing at 12:40 PM on 20.05.2024. The report
indicates that the Circle Inspector had a laceration of 1 cm over the left
occipital scalp, with vertigo and swelling in the same area, and that these were
classified as simple injuries. Notably, the certificate does not specify the age
1997 (1) SCC 416
or colour of the injury. It appears that the investigating officer examined the
police personnel to substantiate that the Circle Inspector had sustained
injuries during the incident.
18. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that if the police
officer had indeed sustained injuries during the incident, such details would
have been recorded in the First Information Report (F.I.R.), and the officer's
statement should have been recorded promptly. The Counsel submits that it is
only after the Court granted protection to the Petitioner in other related matters
that the investigating officer appears to have manipulated the records.
19. The truthfulness or insufficiency of the allegations pertains to the realm
of evidence and cannot be pre-judged at this initial stage. This matter will be
addressed by the trial Judge in due course. The learned senior counsel for the
Petitioner contends that the injury, a laceration measuring 1 cm, sustained by
the Circle Inspector of Police, fails to fulfill the essential requirements for
invoking Section 307 of IPC.
20. Section 307 of the Penal Code reads as under:
"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 imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
21. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that the first part
does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on the part of the Victims is a
prerequisite for convicting an accused.
22. For the purposes of Section 307 of the I.P.C., the critical factor is the
intention or knowledge of the accused, rather than the outcome of their
actions. To invoke this section, it is sufficient if there is intent to kill combined
with some overt act in furtherance of that intent. It is not necessary for the
injury inflicted to be one capable of causing death. The section distinguishes
between the accused's actions and their consequences. The Court must
determine whether the act was performed with the requisite intention or
knowledge, regardless of its result. Whether there was an intention to kill or
awareness that death could result is a factual question, dependent on the
specifics of the case.
23. Intention is a state of mind that is not easily proven directly, as it is
internal to the accused. Consequently, proof of intention is rarely available in a
strict sense and must be inferred from the accused's overt acts. Even if the
accused did not have the specific intention to kill, if they acted with the
knowledge described in Section 300, Clause Fourth of the I.P.C., which
pertains to causing death with awareness of the likely consequences, then
their actions could still constitute murder. If the death resulted from their
actions and they acted with such knowledge, they would be guilty under that
section. Based on the submissions, it cannot be concluded at this stage that
the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are not applicable. Although the
Inspector of Police is shown to have sustained a simple injury, it is premature
to assert definitively that Section 307 IPC does not apply.
24. It has been brought to the Sessions Court's attention that the accused
persons alleged to have participated in the commission of the offence were
granted bail by the Sessions Court. During the proceedings on the bail
applications, it was noted that the following individuals were released on bail:
A.1 to A.4, A.6 to A.10, A.26 to A.31, A.5, A.13, A.15 to A.20 were granted bail
in Crl.M.P.Nos.228 of 2024, 223 of 2024, and 224 of 2024 respectively on
04.06.2024 by the then in-charge X Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Gurazala. Additionally, A.22 and A.25 were granted bail in Crl. M.P. Nos. 235
of 2024 and 229 of 2024 on 10.06.2024. A.21, A.33, and A.35 were also
granted bail in Crl. M.P. Nos. 213 and 226 of 2024 on 04.06.2024.
Furthermore, A.25 was granted bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., on
10.06.2024 on the grounds that the investigation was completed, pending only
the filing of the charge sheet.
25. A perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Court reveals that bail
was not granted based on the Petitioner's status as a former M.L.A. The
Sessions Court expressed concerns regarding the Petitioner's significant
influence in both societal and official spheres and his involvement in nine
distinct criminal cases.
26. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
was acquitted in Cr.Nos.64 of 2009, 34 of 2017 and 97 of 2014; there are
ongoing judicial proceedings against the Petitioner vide S.C. No.52/2020
before IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, which pertains to Cr. No.75 of
2014; Cr. No.78 of 2014, involving the Petitioner, was amicably settled before
Lok Adalat on 09.09.2007; additionally, Cr. No.252 of 2015 against the
Petitioner was withdrawn by the Prosecution on 02.12.2019; the Petitioner did
not receive a summons in relation to Cr.Nos.331 of 2018, 92 of 2019 and 125
of 2019; the Petitioner is implicated in the present crime, i.e., Cr. No.59 of
2024 of Karampudi P.S., as well as in other crimes, i.e., Cr.Nos.48, 52 and 53
of Rentachinthala P.S, and Cr. No.130 of 2024 of Macherla Town P.S.
Regrettably, the abovementioned fact was not duly presented to the Sessions
Court. Consequently, the Sessions Court, operating under the erroneous
belief that the cases had not been disposed of, considered the Petitioner's
prior criminal antecedents and subsequently denied the grant of bail.
27. The Sessions Court observed in the bail order that, should the
Petitioner be granted bail, there is a significant risk that the Petitioner might
attempt to interfere with the evidence, leveraging both his influence and his
position as an Ex-MLA. The Sessions Court also expressed an apprehension
that the Petitioner, if released on bail, could potentially intimidate witnesses,
exert undue pressure on the investigative authorities, and instigate law and
order issues. The learned Senior Counsel points out that the Petitioner is not
affiliated with the ruling party and asserts that the case against him is
contrived. This assertion is based on the Village Revenue Officer's report and
the Circle Inspector's statement, which was submitted more than a week after
the incident. The senior counsel further contends that the observations made
by the Sessions Court in this regard are erroneous.
28. The learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner has been in detention for over 58 days. The learned Senior
Counsel asserts that the Petitioner will not interfere with the ongoing
investigation and, to prevent any undue implications, the petitioner is prepared
to reside outside the State until the investigation is completed, if the Court
puts such condition. As several criminal cases came to be registered against
the accused, which are pending for trial and investigation, the potential for
conducting an investigation in those cases and the trial in criminal cases could
be impacted, if the petitioner remains outside the State.
29. When ascertained, the learned Special Counsel indicated that the
majority of the investigation had been concluded, with the exception of
recording statements from a few remaining witnesses, which is anticipated to
be completed within the next one to two months. He contends that the release
of the accused at this juncture would impede the ongoing investigation.
Additionally, the Counsel pointed out that there have been two prior orders
rejecting bail by the Court of Sessions and argued that, according to the
precedent in Puran Mal V. State of Haryana and another4, High Court may
refrain from granting bail to the Petitioner. However, upon going through the
cited decision, this Court observes that it does not lay down a principle
precluding the High Court's jurisdiction to grant bail merely because the
Sessions Court has denied two successive bail applications.
30. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception ". This basic principle of
criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court way back
in 1978 in its landmark judgment titled "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias
Baliay 5 ". This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished
fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Though the underlying objective behind the detention of a person is to ensure
2022 S.C.C. OnLine SC 1879
MANU/SC/0152/1977
easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, in case the
presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not
compulsory.
31. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right of a detained person.
However, in deciding an application for regular bail, the courts must also
consider the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, namely, the
presumption of innocence and the gravity of the offence(s) involved.
32. It is well-settled law that an accused cannot be detained merely under
the guise of punishment based on a presumption of guilt. In Vaman Narain
Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"8. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy,
and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the
concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to
restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and
presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is
not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption
of his guilt."
33. In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
16. In support of his submission, Shri Basant, learned Senior Counsel,
placed reliance on Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, A.P.
High Court [Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court,
(1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 S.C.C. (Cri) 115], which prescribes the
approach of a court while granting bail. The Court considering an
application seeking bail must refrain from entering into an in-depth
analysis of the case to hold a mini-trial of the case. It is also unnecessary
to give lengthy reasons at the time of granting bail. It was contended that
bail is the norm and jail is the exception. Once a court has granted bail, it
is only in very rare cases that there is interference, as it would have the
effect of cancellation of bail. The liberty of a person cannot be interfered
with unless the situation warrants it.
34. In State of Kerala v. Raneef 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
15. In deciding bail applications, an important factor that should certainly
be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the
(2009) 2 SCC 281
(2022) 4 SCC 497
(2011) 1 SCC 784
trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but
is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in
custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all
the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case?
Of course, this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the most
important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case,
the Respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para
2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be
denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.
Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his
profession and even his name in the Bastille.
35. At the stage of granting bail, this Court's role is limited to determining
whether a prima facie case has been established for granting bail. This Court
cannot assess the credibility or reliability of the Prosecution's witnesses at this
point, as these issues are to be addressed during the trial.
36. Considering the glaring aspects of the case and the fact that nothing
further needs to be recovered from the Petitioner, there appears to be no
justification for continuing the Petitioner's incarceration for an indefinite period
during the trial, as most of the accused persons against whom specific
accusations have been made were released on bail, except the Petitioner.
The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have consistently held that a person is
presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law. In this case,
the guilt of the Petitioner remains to be established by the Investigating
Agency through cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, the Petitioner's
freedom cannot be restricted indefinitely.
37. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the purpose of bail is solely to
ensure the accused's presence at trial. Bail is neither punitive nor preventive;
deprivation of liberty should be seen as a punishment unless necessary to
guarantee that the accused will attend their trial when required. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has consistently held in numerous judgments that denying bail
to an individual who has not yet been convicted contravenes the principle of
personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution, except where there is
reasonable belief that the accused might influence witnesses. Thus, pre-
conviction detention should be avoided except when necessary to secure the
accused's attendance at trial or to prevent witness tampering if the accused is
released.
38. At this stage, the allegations against the Petitioner are subject to the
trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time.
Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until their guilt
or innocence is determined. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the
accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the
witnesses cannot be grounds to refuse bail unless the Prosecution shows that
the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. The Petitioner, being a four-
term M.L.A., with strong community ties, is unlikely to flee from justice.
39. In contrast, the Petitioner has been in detention since 26.06.2024, he
has undergone approximately 58 days. The Petitioner's continued preventive
custody is based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with
the evidence or influence witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-
viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of
allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no
justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the
compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.
40. In these circumstances, the Petitioner's availability for further
investigation, interrogation, and trial is not at risk. The Petitioner has been
assessed as not being a flight risk. Considering these factors, along with the
duration of the Petitioner's custody, the Petitioner is entitled to bail. It is
important to clarify that any observations made regarding the merits of the
case, whether in the Sessions Court's order or in this order, should not be
interpreted as an order on the merits. All contentions will remain open for
consideration during the trial.
41. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and noting that most of
the witnesses have already been examined, the release of the Petitioner/A.24
will not impede the investigation. This Court has examined the instant petition
in light of the established legal principles outlined above and is of the
considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable to being allowed.
Accordingly, without commenting on the merits, lest it may prejudice the trial,
the present petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:
i. The Petitioner/A.24 shall be released on bail on his executing a
personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
two (2) sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Macherla;
ii. The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer;
iii. The petitioner/A.24 shall attend before the investigating officer once
in a week till filing of charge sheet and he shall appear before the
investigating officer as and when his presence is required by the
investigation officer for the purpose of investigation;
iv. The Petitioner shall inform to the investigation officer immediately
after his release, specifying his place of residence, functional
mobile phone number. In the event of any change in his place of
residence or mobile number, he shall promptly update the details
with the Police.
v. The Petitioner shall not make any comment in print or electronic
media about his role in the present case.
vi. The Petitioner is expected to have deposited his Passport before
the Magistrate as per the orders given by this Court in I.A.No.1 of
2024 in Crl.P.No.3788 of 2024 and he is directed to deposit his
Passport if already not deposited and the Petitioner shall not leave
the country without permission of the Court.
vii. The Respondent-State is at liberty to move this Court for
modification or cancellation of bail if the circumstances so
necessitate or in case of violation of any of the conditions
mandated herein.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 23.08.2024
SAK / MS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Criminal Petition No.5388 of 2024
Date: 23.08.2024
SAK
