Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yalamanchili Phaneendra Chowdary vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5608 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking anticipatory bail, by the petitioners/A-2, A-5, A-6, A-8 to A-19, A-21, A-22, A-24, A-25, A-28 to A-31, A-33 to A-37, A-41, A-43 and A-44 in Cr.No.118 of 2021 of Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506, 143, 144, 148 r/w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, there were two groups in YSR Congress Party in Narukullapadu Village of Amaravathi Mandal and the de facto complainant belongs to the group led by Nalleboina Srinivasa Rao, whereas the accused belongs to the group led by Ravela Sambasiva Rao(A-1). The said Ravela Sambasiva Rao (A-1) bore grudge on the group led by Nalliboina Srinivasa Rao on the ground that they did not extend their support to him in the recent panchayat elections and he along with his group was waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance. On 03.04.2021, there was swearing in ceremony of Sarpanch and Vice Sarpanch at Panchayat office and A-1 has sworn as Sarpanch and Nalliboyina Srinivasa Rao has sworn as Vice Sarpanch of the village on behalf of YSR Congress Party. Both the groups have arranged meals separately for their followers. When the de facto complainant and 2 his group after having their meal were going to their houses, the said Ravela Sambasiva Rao (A-1) along with 50 persons, with an intention to kill, attacked the de facto complainant and others arming with stones, sticks, Axes and rods abusing them touching their caste and caused injuries to the de facto complainant and five (05) others. Basing on the complaint given by the de facto complainant the crime was registered against the petitioners and others.
3. Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State. The learned Special Assistant Government Pleader has placed on record the notice served on the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant in compliance of the requirement under Section 15 A (3)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, he did not choose to enter his appearance.
4. Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners are innocent of the offence and they were falsely implicated in this case and in fact, the de facto complainant and his group were the aggressors and they attacked the petitioners and their group and in that connection a case in Cr.No.120 of 2021 of Amaravathi Police Station has been registered under Section 324 r/w. 149 of Indian Penal Code, though ingredients under Section 307 IPC are very much present, against the prosecution party herein and as a counter blast, the de facto complainant and his group weaving out a false story of assault on 3 them, got registered a false case for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sections of S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA).
The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioner nos.3,11,12,26 to 31 belong to S.C.community and the provisions of S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA) Act do not attract against them. He placed on record their caste certificates.
The learned counsel would further submit that a glance at the FIR would make it clear that this case is an outcome of differences in the same political party and the allegations levelled against the petitioners are bald and omnibus in nature and they do not attract any offence much less the offences alleged against the petitioners.
The learned counsel would further submit that the co-accused A1, A3, A4, A7, A20, A26, A27, A32, A38, A39, A40 and A42 have been granted regular bail by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.647 of 2021 on 12.04.2021.
The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners are agriculturists and they are the sole bread winners of their respective family and the agricultural season has set in, and if the petitioners were arrested their families would deprive of their livelihood and they would be put to starvation.
The learned counsel would further submit that substantial part of the investigation has already been completed as is evident from the observations made by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur while granting bail to the co-accused.
4
The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the alleged injured persons have been discharged from the hospital and they are hale and healthy and attending to their day to day activities.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and they hail from agricultural families, they would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court, they would undertake that they would neither tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the process of investigation and that they would make themselves available to the Investigating Officer and cooperate for investigation.
On the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought pre arrest bail to the petitioners and prayed to allow the petition.
5. On the other hand, Sri Venkata Sainath Soora, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that a petition seeking pre arrest bail is not maintainable and the same is contrary Section 18 of the S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA) Act and hence the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding nature of allegations made against the petitioners and others accused being bald and omnibus, is false and a perusal of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the de facto complainant/ L.W.1 would 5 show that specific overt acts have been attributed against each accused.
The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the investigation is in process and if the petitioners were granted pre arrest bail, they would tamper the prosecution evidence and they would not cooperate with the process of investigation.
On the above contentions, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed pre arrest bail to the petitioners and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6. In reply to the contention of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor in relation to maintainability of pre arrest bail application, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India 1 and has drawn attention of this Court to Para-11 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder:
"11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.."
and contended that the FIR in this case does not show prima facie case against the petitioners for applicability of the provisions of the S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA) Act and some of the petitioners belong to S.C.community, hence, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i) of the Act does not apply to the present facts of the case and hence this application is maintainable.
1 . (2020) 4 SCC 727 6
7. Perused the record. The First Information Report discloses that the incident is outcome of previous grudges among two warring groups belong to same political party. S.C.community people have become part of both the groups, as is evident from the caste certificates of some of the petitioners placed on record. Thus, it is hard to believe that the alleged attack is meant either to beat or insult the persons belong to S.C.community. Thus, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the FIR does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of S.Cs.&S.Ts.(PoA) Act and thus, this application filed for grant of pre arrest bail is maintainable in light of the decision referred to supra.
The record further discloses that Crime no. 120 of 2021 has been registered against the prosecution party herein based on the report given by one of the accused in this case for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. Some of the co-accused in this case have been granted regular bail by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur on 12.04.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.647 of 2021. The observations made by the learned Judge in the said order would go to show that substantial part of the investigation is completed even by the time of grant of bail way back on 12.04.2021. The alleged injured persons have been discharged from the hospital and they are hale and healthy, as confirmed by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
8. In view of the above, taking into consideration the fact that substantial part of the investigation is completed and some of the co-accused have been granted regular bail by the Sessions 7 Court and that some of the petitioners/ accused belong to S.C.community and there is counter-case, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. However, keeping in view the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, by imposing the following conditions:
(i) the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.118 of 2021 of Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District, on their executing personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District;
(ii) On release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, Amaravathi twice in a week i.e. on every Monday and Saturday in between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till filing of the charge sheet;
(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and they shall not tamper the evidence and shall cooperate with the investigation.
Any infraction of the above conditions would entail cancellation of bail and the prosecution is at liberty to file application seeking cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the police or the investigating agency from 8 further investigation as per law and the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering bail in the above criminal petition and shall not have any bearing in any other proceeding.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 03.08.2022 RR 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5608 OF 2022 Date : 03.08.2022 RR