Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Between vs State Of Noeharashtra And Another on 12 September, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR |
'PRESENT: =
THE HONOURASLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO _
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8207 OF 2024 :
Between:
Kondru Prabu Kumar, S/o. Rambabu, Aged about 25 years, Occupation:
Colles, Rio. D. No. 1/543-12-B, near Shadikhana, Yanadi Colony,
Gudivada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
. .PetitionerAccused No.4
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by ifs Public Prosecutor, High Court Andhra
Pradesh at Amaravatl. |
..Respondent __.

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2029 [Section 438 of CrP.ciold Section)], is fled praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to eniarge the Petiioner/A1 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.299/2023 dated 25-12-2023 registered on the file af Gudivada 4H Town UPS Police Station, Krishna District for offence under section 32% and 307 IPG.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mis Syed Khader Mastan, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent, the Court made the following

SAAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH . AT AMARAYAT! (3389) (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TAO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: S207ieted

Setween:

Noneru Prabu Kumar «PE TTTIONER/ACCUSED AND

State OF Andhra Pracesh RESPON DENT/GOMPLAINANT

Coursel for the Peltionerfaccused:

{SYED KHADER MASTAN Caunsel for the Respondentfcamplainant: TPUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Courl made the following ORDER:

This Criminal Pelion, uncler Section 438 of the Cade of Crinunal

shor, '"OrnP.G.), has been Hed by the

Procedure, Y2?a Gnr

EH

PefitioneriAccused No.1, seeking aniicinatary bell, in connection with Crime

No. 299 of 2023 of Gudivada 1 Town Poline Station, hrishna District.

ae A case has been registered against ihe Retiioner/A.1 and offers for the

offence punishable under Sections 207, 2e8 read wih Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code, 1880 dor short, HPC").

3 The Proseculion's case, in brief) is that the Oefacto Coampisinant,

Addanki Raj Kurnar & Kamal, renaried to ihe Respoandent-Falice that he had

borrowed rnoney from his nephew, A.1 whic) no led to a dispute beiwsen them.

An FLLR. was subsequently filed against the accused at Gudivada H Town Police Station. Later, AZ, the cornplainant's brother-in-law, called him to the ancused's house. During thelr discussion about the loan, At atfacked the complainant with an iron rod, striking him on the head with Intent fo KHL A? {hen hil him: on the left leg with another iron rod, while A.S stabbed! him in the chest with an iron rod, causing severe bleading. Additionally, A.4 through A? assaulted him physically. When the carnplainant's son arrived to help, all the

accused aise attacked hirn.

4, The learned counsel for the Petiioner/A.1 contends that the Petitioner did not beal the Defanto Complainant on the head with a stick, 4.2, A.B, and AY have already been granted reguar bell, A.3 and A.S were granted anticipatory ball by this Court in Cr.PNo.2Z?4a of S024. The counsel further

comends that Ihe Defacto Cornplainant alleg

diy atiermpied to rape the victimySukanya, resulling in a fracture injury, which was deemed grievous apined Dy doctor. The original report of the Victinn was suppressed, and a diferent version was registered as F.LRLNo 298 of 2023. The Victim is the Pettioner's paternal aunt. The registration of the present FLR., against the Felilioner is an abuse of power intended to coerce the Victim into compromising the case. The Pefitioner is ready and willing to cogperate with

ihe investigation and therefore, prayed for granting of anticioatory bail.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent-Stote

opposed the granting of anticipatory ball to the Petitioner/A.1 an the ground of investigation is pending: the ingredients of the section 307 of [PC are attracted fo the facts of the present case; and if the Petitioner is enlarged on

anlicipatory bad, there is avery possibility of tampering with the evidence.

8. i have heard both sides. Laamed counsel on both sides reiterated their confentions an par wilh the submissions presented In the Petition as well as in the report. Consequently, the contentions presented by both learned counsels

need not be reproduced.

tab

. in Madigal ¥. Rajesh', the Hon'ble ® Apex Court held that i is necessa: ry for the Court, while considering @ ball application, to assess whether, based cn the evidentiary record, there existed a prima fecie or reasonable a ground to

belleve thatthe accused has committed the crine.

8. itis settled law that while cons dering the prayer for grant of anticioa tory vail, (he nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the aocused must Oe properly comorehended before arrest is made. in the evant of there being some doubt as to the genuineneas of the prosecution, the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of antic cipatory ball. The

ourt must adequately exercise ts 'Jurisdiction to protect the personal "erty ° of

8 Ciizen. His also 9 well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and {he fa

the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and Ho should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arr esting the accused is imperative based on

the facts and clrournstances of that case.

&, This Court Wews the power fo authorise detention as a very sdlemn function. i affects the fberty and freedom of cifizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. The altitude fo arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. has become a handy too! for police

olicers who lack sensitivity or act with ob Sigue motives.

18. The law presurnes an accused to be Innocent tif his GUI is proven. As 3 presumably Innocent person, he is entited to all the fundamental nahis including the right of Nberfy quaranieed under Arficle 24 of the Constitution of

india.

Vi. In Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Noeharashtra and another, the Hor'ble Apex Court observed that

Sy Ket menaestest » . mien sesfos Rook whos ee Anicipatory Gal not fo fe gravee 8s a matter of sve buf shoud be

oF ated any when ae vase is made out and fhe Court is comdnced that Af 4

CC 18

12. in light of the fegal position outlined above. | will now analyse the specific fants of the case fo determine the Petitioner's enitiemnent fo

anticipatory bail,

13. The learned counsel for the Patiioner contended that the allggations against the Petitioner are rooted in family disputes. To support ts assertion, the Petitioner cited the First information Report (FUR. fled under Case No.298 of 2023, dated 25.12.2023. The F.LR.. recounts an evant in which K.Sukanya alleged that the Oefacto Complainant fad assaulted her, According to Sukanya, she had defended herself by pushing the Defacto Camplsinant, resulting in his head striking a wall and sustaining an intury. The reported incident allegedly took place at 10:00 hours cn 29.12.2025, with the report jodged al 17:00 hours the same day.

4. The Defacto Complainant in Case No.298 of 2093 is the Patilioner's paternal aumt, The Petitioner asseris that following the injury described in Case No. 288 of 2023, the Defacto Complainant lodged a report against him. in this later report, the Defacto Cornplainant alleged that the Petitioner had assaulted him with an iran rod, inflicting the head injury. This report was filed under Case No. 299 of 2023 at 20:80 hours, despite the purported incident having occurred at 12:00 hours on 25.12.2023. His ndlewarthy thal the oalice station is sHuated only 2 kilometers from the incident location, and there was a

significant delay of eight and a half hours before the Incident was reported,

18. The material placed on recor! orima facie indicates that the report in Case No.299 of 2023 was lodged subsequent to the repayt in Case No. 38 of 2023. In ght of the prevailing familial disputes, it is the Petitioner's contention thal he had bean implicated in the latter case based on the injudes detailed in the former report lodged by K.Sukanya. Additionally, there is no material on

record io sugqest that the Petitioner has any rior criminal history.

18. if is also a wellhaccepted principle that ball is the rule and the jail is the

exception, The Han'ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram V. Directorate of

AAA

Enforcement', consitering all the earlier judgments, observed thal the basic jurisprudence relating fo ball remains the same in as much as the grant of bal is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure that, the accused hag the

aopariurily of securing a fair inal,

47. iis not the Prosecution's case that the Petitioner did noi cooperate with the investigation, and he js not avaiable for Interrogation. There is no indication of a likelihood that the Patitioner would abscand frorn the | lurisdiction

of the Court, The Petitioner has SApRESSOC willingness fo cooperate with the

Coors

investigation agency. The object of the ball is neither punitive nor preventative. The fkelihood of levying accusalions with the intention of harming or embarrassing the Peltioner through pofential arrest is not imorobabla,

especially in the context of family disputes.

18. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and animosity between the parties, this Court believes that even if the Petitioner is granted pre-arresi ball, there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that he will tamper with ihe evidence, The material placed on record discloses that the Petitioner

has [he permanent abode. {fis not the Progecution's case that the Petitioner

would Hee away from the jurisdiction of the Court. The facts do not warrant custodial inferragation of the Petitioner in the nature of the accusations. Thus, here is a prima facie case In favour of the Petitioner. Granting anticipatory ball

to the Petitioner would nof impede the ongoing Investigation,

18. Upon careful review of the available material, as thes me ig no risk of interference with ihe ongoing investigation by the Detoner, ius Court finds that anticipatory ball can be granted fo the Petifioner'Ad under certain condifions:

} Patitioner'A.( is directed to surrender before the Station House Offser, Gudivada f! Town Urban Police Station, Krishna District

within two (2) weeks from foday. On such surrender, the q 2

os

Byes . ~ . PA we .

@2OU9) G IC 8S : 48) 16 Saale AO

Fetitioner/A.1 shall be enlarged on bail on hfs execuling 3 personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only} with hwo surelies of the ike sum each to the

Satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

'}) The Petitioner/A1 shall attend before the concerned investigating Officer ance in a week Le. on every Sunday between 10.00 AM and 01.00 PM for a period of three @) months from today.

il) The Petitioner/A.1 shall cooperate with the investigation and he shail make himself avaiable for interrogation by a palice officer &$ and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducernent, threat or promise fo 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,

20. it is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The investigating Agency is afiirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the

observations in this Order.