Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J.C.Prabhakar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 February, 2021
3 roa i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 563 OF 2021 Between: 1. J.C.Prabhakar Reddy, aged 68 years, S/o J.C.Nagi Reddy, Resident of Sanjeev Nagar, Tadipatri-515411, Anantapuramu District. 2. J.C. Asmith Reddy, aged 37 years, S/o J.C. Prabhakar Reddy, resident of Sanjeev Nagar, Tadipatri-515411, Anantapuramu District. .. .Petitioner/Accused No.1 & 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 850/2020 of Tadipatri P.S. Anantapuramu District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.563 OF 2021 ORDER:-
This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre arrest bail by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.849 of 2021 of the Station House Officer, Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapuram District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 506, 307 and 427 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short '.P.C.' and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 'SC ST Act).
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was given by the President of YSRCP Congress party of Tadipatri Town stating that while he was going to his house passing 274 lane of Sanjeev Nagar, the petitioners herein and some other persons were present and they abused that the de facto complainant belongs to Madiga caste and how has come to the place. By saying so the 1s petitioner instigated other to kill him and the 2"¢ petitioner by taking sickle in his hand hacked the de facto complainant by abusing him in the name of caste. The de facto complainant has sustained injury about the eye and the remaining have pushed and hit him with hands and legs. The people who are passing by that side have raised cries and the accused left him and escaped from the place. Basing on the said complaint, the crime is registered.
3. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the allegations are politically motivated and in fact on 24.12.2020, another complaint was lodged almost with the similar allegations and a crime was registered. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that there are clear allegations and in fact, the 2.4 accused has hacked the de facto complainant for which he sustained an injury above his eye and also abused in the name of caste as such, in view of Section 18 of the SC&ST (POA) Act, application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. He further submits that as the investigation is in progress, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled for pre arrest bail.
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in view of Section 18 of the Act, anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.1015 of 2018 and Writ Petition (C) No.1016 of 2018 between Pruthvi Raj Chauhan and Union of India has considered the scope of Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act and observed that:
"concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., shall not apply to the Act. However, if the complainant does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisicns of the Act the bar created by Section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply."
bee nee It would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, High Court has to balance two interests i.e. the power is not so used to convert the jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and if such orders are not made in similar cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. Therefore, I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament."
8. Looking at the complaint the allegations under the SC ST Act are attracted against A-2. In view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC ST Act, this Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to accused No.2. The only allegation against A-1 is that he has shouted and instigated others and there are no allegations under the provisions of SC ST Act. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre arrest bail to A-1.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The petitioner No.1/A-1 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 849 of 2021 of the Station House Officer, Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapuram District on a condition of executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapuram District. A-1 shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not tamper with the evidence. In case A-1 fails to cooperate with the enquiry and try to influence the witnesses, the police are at liberty to move an application To, DRWN>= | & 4 ie seeking cancellation of bail. The bail application is dismissed as far as petitioner No.2/A-2 is concerned.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-T.Madhavi ner ae ITRUE COPY// SECTION' OFFICER The Station House Officer, Tadipatri Police Station, Anantapuram District. One CC to Sri. Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy.
HIGH COURT LK,J DATED:10/02/2021 ORDER CRLP.No.563 of 2021 DIRECTION