Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Jagadeesh Reddy Jagapati Accused No. ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 August, 2024
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010334232024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5393/2024
Between:
K.jagadeesh Reddy @ Jagapati ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
(accused No. 17) and Others
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. VMR LEGAL
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 seeking regular bail, in Crime No.75 of 2024 of SVU Campus, Tirupathi.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 along with other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 324, 427, 120B read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC').
3. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 14.05.2024 at 3.00 PM at the premises of Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati, the de facto complainant went to Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati in his car bearing registration No.AP03 CD 6688 along with his gunman, driver viz. Ranjith and his attendant Saravana to attend the strong room inspection at the time of deposit of EVM boxes and its preservation procedure. At that time, when he was about to reach at a near distance to the strong room, the followers of MLA viz. C.Bhaskar Reddy and his son C.Mohit 3 Reddy, his followers and petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 and others with a criminal conspiracy and common object, armed with deadly weapons i.e. hammer, iron rods, beer bottles and cricket bats were alleged to have attacked them by obstructing his car. They were alleged to have damaged the car and attempted to commit murder of de facto complainant by hacking and beating him with deadly weapons. The petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 were alleged to have attacked him and caused injuries to his left shoulder and caused dumb injuries on his body and when his gunman came to his rescue, A1 was alleged to have beaten him with a big hammer and tried to kill him and caused grievous injury. Basing on the report of de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.75 of 2024 of SVU Campus, Tirupathi District was registered for the alleged offences and investigated into.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 contends that the petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 were 4 falsely implicated basing on the confessional statement of other accused in this crime, and police arrested them on 14.07.2024 and since then, they are in judicial remand. Major portion of investigation has been completed except filing of charge sheet.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the de facto complainant contends that the entire incident is videographed and on perusal of the said video goes to show that it is a preplanned attack on the de facto complainant and another in order to eliminate them.
6. On the contrary, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that all the accused in a mob attacked the de facto complainant. According to him, the police have to identify the assailants by watching the videograph, and unless the Test Identification Parade is conducted, it is difficult to identify them. He further submits that along with de facto complainant, one public servant viz. Dharani Kumar was also got injured.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
8. On the date of the incident, the contesting candidate, who is the de facto complainant and another went to Sri Padmavathi 5 Mahila University, Tirupathi in his car along with his gunman to attend the strong room inspection at the time of deposit of EVM boxes and its preservation as per the schedule served to him. The accused conspired together and with a common object, armed with deadly weapons had damaged the car and attempted to beat with rods and beer bottles. Accused Nos.1 and A2 were alleged to have attacked the de facto complainant and caused injury to his left shoulder and dumb injuries on his body parts. On seeing the same, the gunman of the de facto complainant had come to his rescue. It is alleged that A1 and A2 and others attacked him and caused grievous injuries to him. At that point of time, the gunman has opened fire and the assailants ran away by leaving their vehicles.
9. This Court has perused the Wound Certificate of public servant viz. M.Dharani Kumar and de facto complainant viz. Pullivarthi Venkata Muni Prasad. Insofar as the Wound Certificate in respect of de facto complainant viz. Pullivarthi Venkata Muni Prasad, the Doctor opined that the injury Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are simple in nature and no abnormality has been found on the injuries received by him.
6
10. In respect of injured viz. M.Dharani Kumar, on Radiological examination, two injuries were found i.e. (1) the laceration injury of 2 x 1 x 0.5 cms near left eyebrow, and (2) pain and swelling of right ring finger. On Radiological X-ray opinion, the Doctor found that fracture dislocation of proximal interphalangeal joint and base of middle phalanx of ring finger. The Doctor opined that the injury No.(1) near left eyebrow is simple in nature and injury No.(2) pain and swelling to right ring finger appears to be grievous in nature. At the same time, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that both injured were discharged from the hospital. The petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 were arrested on 14.07.2024 and since then, they are in judicial remand.
11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously contends that at this stage, bail application of the petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 to 34 cannot be considered, for the reason that, Test Identification Parade has to be conducted. According to him, since the accused and other persons in the mob were alleged to have attacked the de 7 facto complainant, unless and until the Test Identification Parade is been conducted, the accused cannot be identified.
12. A perusal of record would disclose that the petitioners herein/ accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 were arrested on 14.07.2024 and they have been languishing in judicial custody since then. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 on bail, but with conditions.
13. Accordingly, the petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 shall be enlarged on bail on executing their personal bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each, with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi. Further, the petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required and that they shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.
8
(i) The petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 shall be present and cooperate with the Investigating Officer for conducting of Test Identification Parade.
(ii) The petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 shall cooperate with the investigation being done by the police agency;
(iii) The petitioners herein/accused Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned, once in a fortnight, till filing of the charge sheet;
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY th 14 August, 2024.
VNS