Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gandham Pallam Raja vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 July, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 4881, 4882, 4883 and 4884 of 2022 COMMON ORDER:
-
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with crime Nos.138, 139, 140 and 141 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as A141, A134, A141 and A134 respectively in the above crimes.
3. Crime No.138 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(b) 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 506 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act.
4. Crime No.139 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324, 435, 120(B), 109, 201 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act.
5. Crime No.140 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B), 341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 336, 435, 188, 506 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act, 1861.
2
6. Crime No.141 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 436, 435, 188, 120(B), 353, 201 and 109 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short „IPC‟) and Section 32 of Police Act.
7. The above crimes were registered basing on the reports lodged by Subrahmanyam Vasamsetti, Home Guard-268; Koppisetti Venkata Ganesh, VRO; Naga Venkata Ratna Giri Babu, Driver of RTC Bus; and Ponnada Venkata Narayana Kumar cousin of Ponnada Venkata Satish, MLA of Mummidhivaram; respectively, with regard to the incident that took place on 24.05.2022 pursuant to the notification issued by the Government by changing the name of Konaseema District as Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.
8. The facts of above crimes are inter-connected. Therefore, they are considered and decided by this common order.
The facts of the case in brief are:
9. On 24.05.2022 at about 4:00 P.M., on a call given by JAC of Konaseema Sadhana Committee, huge number of people gathered together for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema District by violating the proceedings issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the Police Act. The mob started rally at Kalasam Centre, Amalapuram Town and proceeded to Clock Tower Centre 3 and in the meanwhile various groups of public came from four corners to the clock tower centre and formed into a huge mob.
10. Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to Collectorate when the Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and burnt BVC collage bus which was used as transport vehicle for the Police.
11. Further when Police tried to control the mob at Collectorate, the mob pelted stones on Police personnel due to which some of the Police sustained injuries, damaged the glasses of Collectorate Office and Ambedkar Bhavan.
12. Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthena), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses.
13. The mob further moved towards the house of Hon‟ble Minister. When the mob shouted and beat police persons, AR constable fired rounds in air, but agitators attacked complainant and his staff; attacked staff of Hon‟ble Minister, caused damage to the furniture and set fire to the house.
13. The mob further moved towards the house of MLA and pelted stoned on the house due to which glasses were damage. When cousin of MLA tried to pacify the matter and while he was taking video of the situation, the mob poured petrol on him, but he managed to escape. Then the mob entered into the house of MLA, 4 set fire to the motorcycles and entire furniture in the house including house.
14. The petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused in the above crimes basing on the complaints lodged by respective persons referred to supra.
15. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. S. Gouthami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as „Public Prosecutor‟) for the respondent-state.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident took place on 24.05.2022 and the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the complaints. He submits that in the complaints nothing was attributed against the petitioner and petitioner‟s participation in the agitation. Basing on the confession statement of co-accused, the petitioner was taken into custody on 02.06.2022. Immediately on 03.06.2022, wife of the petitioner filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus W.P.No.15647 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to produce the detenue i.e. the petitioner herein before the Court. After filing of writ petition police arrayed the petitioner as one of the accused in the above four crimes and other crimes and recorded the confession statement. As per the remand report, petitioner surrendered before Amalapuram Rural Circle on 06.06.2022 and after recording his 5 confessional statement along with other accused, petitioner and others were produced before learned Magistrate and learned Magistrate initially granted remand for fifteen days and later extended the same. Learned Senior Counsel submits that from 24.05.2022 to 06.06.2022, i.e. from alleged date of incident till the date of alleged surrender, Police could not find any incriminate material against the petitioner and petitioner was falsely implicated in the above crimes. He submits that petitioner is in jail from 06.06.2022 and material part of investigation is completed and hence, he prays for grant of regular bail.
17. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner being a leader mobilized public and provoked the mob during rally. He submits that petitioner is one among the other leaders of agitation who, circulated messages through social media lead to the incident on 24.05.2022. He submits that in fact petitioner involved in a murder case in the year, 2004 and rowdy sheet was opened against him in the year, 2006 by Ainavilli Police. He further submits that investigation is still pending and hence, he prays to dismiss the bail application.
18. Perused the record and C.D. file. In pursuance of the notification issued by the Government about change of name of Konaseema District as Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District a call was given by JAC Konaseema District Sadhana Samithi for submission of representations. Thousands of people gathered at Clock Tower Centre and proceeded to Collectorate Office. When 6 Police tried to prevent them from entering the premises said mob pelted stones on the Police and caused injuries to them. Further the mob also damaged Collectorate Office as well as Ambedkar Building and also lit fire to buses, set fire to house of the Hon‟ble Minister and damaged the house of local MLA.
19. As can be seen from the record prosecution identified accused basing on CC TV footage, social media videos and photos and confession made by the other accused. Name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the complaints.
20. A perusal of the complaints lodged by respective complainants does not indicate about participation of the petitioner in the protest. According to the prosecution, the accused were identified basing on C.C.T.V. footage and call data particulars. However, according to learned Senior Counsel, petitioner was illegally detained by the Police on 02.06.2022 and since the wife of the petitioner filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Police showed it as if petitioner surrendered on 06.06.2022 and basing on the confession of co-accused, petitioner was falsely implicated in the above crimes.
21. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1, the hon‟ble Apex Court observed as follows:
21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The 1 2012 (1) SCC 40 7 object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, „necessity‟ is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
24. In the instant case, as we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer.
Though, they contend that there is possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor: The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the 8 punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of justice."
25. The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.
....
27. This Court time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. ....
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the 9 Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
22. In the case on hand, admittedly, the name of the petitioner is not shown in any of the above complaints. Basing on the confession co-accused petitioner was shown as accused. According to learned Senior Counsel, petitioner was taken into custody on 02.06.2022, however according to prosecution, petitioner surrendered on 06.06.2022. Since 06.06.2022, petitioner is in judicial remand. Police did not file any petition seeking custody of petitioner and in fact cell phone of petitioner is seized by police. Hence, petitioner‟s custody in remand further is not required.
23. As pointed out supra basing on confession, petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused. The Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the evidentiary value of confession statement of co-accused. In Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam vs. State of Bihar 2, it was held that the court cannot start with the confession of a co- accused person, it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to lend assurance to the conclusion of guilt which is the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. It was further observed that confession of co- 2 1964 AIR 1184 10 accused person cannot be considered as substantial evidence and it can be pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to accept the other evidence and feels necessity of seeking assurance in support of its conclusion adducible from the said evidence.
24. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar3, while dealing with the confessional statements made by the accused persons before a police officer, the Supreme Court held as under:
"7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started."
Thus, in view of the expression of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, since the petitioner was arrayed as accused basing on confession of the co-accused it being a weak piece of evidence petitioner is entitled to bail.
25. Apart from the above, there must be unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of IPC for attracting offences under 3 (1998) 8 SCC 130 11 Sections 147 and 148 of IPC. In the present case nothing is forthcoming from the record to show that all the people in the mob had a common intention of committing an offence.
26. The other contention raised by learned Public Prosecutor is regarding applicability of Section 307 of IPC. In the present case, admittedly the mob consists of more than 1000 people. None of the complaints indicate about common intention or common object of committing an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Specific overt acts were not attributed against the petitioner.
27. It is also evident from the record that the mob gathered for submitting their representations at Collectorate office, but not with an intention of committing any offence and admittedly the mob was not armed with weapons.
28. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the mobile phone of the petitioner has been seized and the prosecution is trying to retrieve whatsapp communication, etc. and hence, petitioner‟s presence is required for custodial interrogation. However, so far no petition was filed before the learned Magistrate seeking custody. Since no such petition is filed continuing petitioner in judicial remand will curtail petitioner‟s right under Art 21 of the Constitution of India. At this stage this Court is not going into the merits of the confession of the accused etc. Since the petitioner is in judicial remand from 06.06.2022 i.e. for the last five weeks, this 12 Court deems it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
33. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed. The petitioner who is shown as A141, A134, A141 and A134 in crime Nos. 138, 139 140 and 141 of 2022 respectively of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District shall be released on bail in connection with said crimes on condition of executing self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, in each crime to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, Ambedkar Konaseema District, A.P.
34. The petitioner shall appear before concerned Station House Officer, thrice in a week i.e. on every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday between 9:00 am to 6:00 pm for a period of three months or till the date of filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier. Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence is required. Petitioner shall neither influence the witnesses nor tamper with the evidence. Petitioner shall not leave the limits of Amalapuram without intimating to the police till filing of charge sheet.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 19.07.2022 IKN 13 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 4881, 4882, 4883 and 4884 of 2022 Date : 19.07.2022 IKN