Bogamoni Suresh vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1013 Tel

Telangana High Court

Bogamoni Suresh vs The State Of Telangana on 10 January, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.16140 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of respondent - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under

Section - 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for Short

'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in

connection with FIR No.145 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet Police

Station, Vikarabad District.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the

aforesaid Crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections

- 189(2), 191(3), 126 (2), 127 (2), 132 and 109 read with 190 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for Short 'BNS').

4. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged

by Mr. Rathod Kannaiah, PC 1404 of Bomraspet Police Station, the

police registered a case in Crime No.145 of 2024 against the petitioner

herein and others.

KL,J

5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said

complaint are as follows:

i) On 25.10.2024, a first public hearing was fixed by the

Revenue Authorities. Mr. Avuti Shekar, President of Congress Party,

Dudyal Mandal proceeded to Lagacherla from Hyderabad to attend

the said public hearing at 10.00 A.M. Before entering into

Lagacherla, the accused obstructed his vehicle at Rotibanda Thanda

and damaged his vehicle and confined him in Gram Panchayat

building and locked the main door. Meanwhile, huge public were

gathered and then police came and rescued the said Shekar. The

accused intended to attack on him with one big iron rod and sticks and

forcibly hit the main door with an intention to kill the victim

presuming that at the instance of the said Shekar only, Pharmacity is

coming at Lagacherla. Subsequent to the said incident, the public

hearing was postponed to 25.10.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

name of the petitioner is not there in the complaint. During the course

of investigation, the Investigating Officer included the name of the

petitioner as accused No.2. He has also filed a memo to the said

effect.

KL,J

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed counter along with the

statements of LWs.1 to 7 including the complainant as LW.1 and the

said Avuti Shekar as LW.4 and the statements of Mr. Srinivasulu, Mr.

Ravi Naik, Mr. Thunkimetla Vijay Kumar, driver of LW.4, Mr.

Merugu Srikatnh,an Agricutlurist and resident of Dudyal Village, Mr.

Avuti Nagaraju, an Agriculturist and resident of Lagacherla Village.

He is nephew of LW.4.

8. All of them in one voice spoke about the role played by the

petitioner herein. The petitioner is the flower of Accused No.1 and he

is the main conspirator. There are specific allegations against him and

the same are serious in nature. At the instance of accused No.1 and 2,

other accused restrained LW.4 and tried to kill him. Investigation is

still pending.

9. Section - 189 of BNS deals with 'unlawful Assembly', while

Section - 191 of the BNS deals with rioting. Section - 127 of the BNS

deals with 'wrongful confinement. Section - 132 of the BNS deals

with assaults or uses criminal force to deter any person from discharge

of his official duty and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment of

KL,J

either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with

fine, or with both.

10. Section - 126 of the BNS deals with wrongful restraint

and punishment for the same is one month or with fine which may

extend to Rs.5000/- or with both. Section - 190 of the BNS says that

every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in

prosecution of common object. Section - 109 of the BNS deals with

attempt to murder. Thus, the punishment for the aforesaid offences

except the offence under Section - 109 of the BNS is below 7 years.

Therefore, petitioners are entitled for benefit under Section - 35 (3) of

the BNSS.

11. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

Maharashtra 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain

parameters that can be demonstrated while dealing with anticipatory

bail and it is relevant and same is extracted below:

"121. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly

. (2011) 1 SCC 694

KL,J

visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour.

122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

KL,J

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in 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 an order of bail."

12. The Apex Court further held that arrest should be the last

option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where

arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of

KL,J

that case. The Court must carefully examine the entire available

record and particularly the allegations which have been directly

attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by

other material and circumstances on record.

13. The Apex Court further held that the aforesaid factors are

only illustrative. It is difficult to clearly visualize all situation and

circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a

wide discretion is exercised by the concerned judge after

consideration of entire material on record, then most of the grievances

in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The

legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this

jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior Courts. In consonance

with the legislative intention, the discretion would be properly

exercised.

14. The Apex Court further held that irrational and

indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights.

15. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 2, a Three-Judge

Bench of the Apex Court referred to the third Report of the National

. (1994) 4 SCC 260

KL,J

Police Commission in which it is mentioned that the quality of arrests

by the Police in India mentioned "power of arrest was one of the chief

sources of corruption in the police. The report suggested that by and

large nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified

and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the

expenditure of the prison department". Personal liberty is a precious

fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes

imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case.

16. Relying on the said judgment, the Apex Court in Sushila

Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 3 held that despite several Law

Commission Reports and recommendations of several committees and

commissions, arbitrary and groundless arrests continue as a pervasive

phenomenon. Parliament has not thought it appropriate to curtail the

power or discretion of the Courts, in granting pre-arrest or anticipatory

bail, especially regarding the duration, or till charge sheet is filed, or

in serious crimes. Therefore, it would not be in the larger interests of

society if the Court, by judicial interpretation, limits the exercise of

that power: the danger of such an exercise would be that in fractions,

. (2020) 5 SCC 1

KL,J

little by little, the discretion, advisedly kept wide, would shrink to a

very narrow and unrecognizably tiny portion, thus frustrating the

objective behind the provision, which has stood the test of time, these

46 years.

17. In Fireman Ghulam Mustafa v. State of Uttaranchal 4,

the Apex Court held that to justify a conviction under Section 307 of

IPC, the Court has to see whether the act was done with the intention

to commit murder. Although the nature of injuries caused may be of

assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused,

such intention may also be gathered from the circumstances like the

nature of weapons used, parts of the body where the injuries were

caused, severity of the blows given, the motive and other facts of the

case.

18. In Smt. Parisha Trivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh5,

wherein the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur stressed upon the

177th Report of the Law Commission of India under the heading

"INTRODUCTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF ARREST", the same is

relevant, it is extracted below:

. (2016) 15 SCC 752

. MCRCA No.944 of 2024, decided on 23.09.2024

KL,J

"Liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. It has been the founding faith of the human race for more than 200 years. Both the American Declaration of Independence, 1776 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 1789, spoke of liberty being one of the natural and inalienable rights of man. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10-12-1948 contains several articles designed to protect and promote the liberty of individual. So does the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Above all, Article 21 of the Constitution of India proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his right to personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Even Articles 20(1) & (2) and Article 22 are born out of a concern for human liberty. As it is often said, 'one realises the value of liberty only when he is deprived of it'.

Liberty, along with equality is the most fundamental of human rights and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Of equal importance is the maintenance of peace, law and order in the society. Unless, there is peace, no real progress is possible. Societal peace lends stability and security to the polity. It provides the necessary conditions for growth, whether it is in the economic sphere or in the scientific and technological spheres."

19. In the light of said discussion and the principle laid down

the aforesaid decisions, prima facie, the allegations levelled against

KL,J

the petitioner are serious in nature. The Investigating Officer recorded

the statements of the aforesaid witnesses.

20. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein is accused

No.2 in Crime No.153 of 2024 pending on the very same police

Station. He was arrested on 12.11.2024 and released on bail on

09.01.2025. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the

present crime and in Crime No.153 of 2024, cause of action and place

of incident etc., are different. Prima facie, there are specific

allegations against the petitioner herein in the present crime.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner herein.

21. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

the criminal petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 10th January, 2025 Mgr