Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bathina Gangaiah, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 February, 2021
HONOURABALE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Criminal Petition No.851 of 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.18 of 2021 of Kodur Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 353, 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').
2. A complaint is lodged by the de facto complainant on 23.01.2021, alleging that the de facto complainant, who is Tahsildar, Railway Kodur Mandal, forwarded a letter in proceedings to the police alleging that petitioners and others came to his office, Kodur at about 12.00P.M. in attacking mode by way of shouting loudly by raising slogans against Mandal Administration and thereby threatened the staff members in their office in a outraging manner, while the complainant is in a ROR case along with other persons in her chamber. At that time, the complainant informed the same to the police to monitor the situation. Again on the same day, when the de facto complainant was attending training programme on distribution of essential commodities through mobile dispensing units conducted with Village Revenue Officers and MDU beneficiaries, the petitioners rushed there with slogans by shouting loudly. It is alleged that that they removed their shirts and shouted outrageously, due to which the de facto complainant came out 2 LK, J CRLP.No.851 of 2021 from the chamber and went into staff room and thereby locked the same. All the persons chased the complainant and follow her to the staff room and thereby knocked the doors in outrageously manner. Basing on the said letter, the present crime is registered.
3. Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have not committed any offence, much less the alleged offences. She submits that in view of a dispute with regard to removal of a Banyan tree aged about 100 years existing in the neighbouring lands of the 1st petitioner and one Subramanian, who is working as Village Revenue Assistant, for which the 1st petitioner has not agreed, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case with the active collusion of the Village Revenue Assistant and the Tahsildar. In fact, the 1st petitioner made a representation to the Tahsildar to conduct a survey and take necessary action, but he did not take any action, for which they protested the Tahsildar and that the petitioners never attacked or prevented the Tahsildar.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per the video recording through mobile phone, the petitioners have acted in outraged manner and caused 3 LK, J CRLP.No.851 of 2021 obstruction to the duties of the de facto complainant and hence, they are not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, since there are specific overt acts against the petitioners and the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature, this court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
7. However, as the punishment prescribed for the offences is less than seven years, the respondent-Police are directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1 scrupulously.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J Date: 23-02-2021 Ksn 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273