Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kothakota Ranganadham vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4009 OF 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioner/A-3 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.577/2020 on the file of the Station House Officer, Etcherla Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), apprehending his arrest.
2. The case of prosecution in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a report with the police alleging that on 06.07.2020 at about 8.30 while he along with other villagers viz., Pydi Vasudeva Rao, Sattaru Gopi, Kothakota Appanna, Kothakota Appalanaidu, Gurugubelli Maheswara Rao, Kothakota Lakshmi sitting and chit-chatting at Badarlamma centre, keeping in view the political rivalry, the followers of Telugu Desam Party viz., Kothakota Amminaidu, Kothakota Appanna, Kothakota Ranganadham, Kothakota Suryanarayana, Kothakota Krishna Rao, Kothakota Tejeswara Rao, Kothakota Appalanaidu, Kuna Srinivasa Rao, Kothakota Manmadha Rao, Kothakota Siva Kumar, Kothakota Anil, Kothakota Ramana, Ampolu Sunil Varma, Pydichench Navin Kumar, Kothakota Navin Kumar, Kothakota Suraj, Kothakota Prakash and others came there, armed with knives, rods and sticks with an intention to kill them and that Kothakota Amminaidu, Kothakota Ranganadham, the petitioner herein attacked with knives thereby the de facto complainant and others received severe bleeding and swelling injuries. The de facto complainant received swelling injuries 2 on his right hand finger; Sattaru Gopi also received bleeding injury to his hand, Kothakota Krishna Rao, Tarak, Kothakota Tejeswara Rao beat Pydi Vasudeva Rao with rods, thereby he received swelling injury on his leg and others also received bleeding injuries; Uma Maheswara Rao, Kothakota Appanna, Kothakota Venkata Rao, Kothakota Lakshmi received bleeding injuries and swelling injuries and thereafter the villagers shifted them in an auto and got admitted all the injured in RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam. On the basis of report given by the de facto complainant, the crime is registered for various offences referred above.
3. The main contention of petitioner is that there are no specific overt acts attributed against him and he was implicated falsely. A counter case is also registered against the de facto complainant and his followers vide Crime No.578 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 324, 341 r/w 149 IPC on the file of same police station arising out of the same incident. But, the police allegedly deleted the Section of law i.e 307 IPC and altered the Section of law from 324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC by deleting Section 307 IPC to proceed further. When a crime is registered against the petitioner arising out of the same incident deletion of several provisions is not tenable in the eye of law and this Court is not required to adjudicate all these questions at this stage.
4. The main contention of the petitioner is that in the absence of specific overt acts against the petitioner he can be enlarged on pre- arrest bail as major part of investigation is completed and the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature as they were discharged from the hospital on the same day and requested to grant pre arrest bail.
3
5. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.Raj Kumar reiterated the contentions urged in the petition while drawing attention of this Court to certain documents i.e. memo filed in Crime No.578 of 2020 and other documents.
6. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the petition on the ground that the investigation in this case is not yet completed and the specific overt act is attributed against the petitioner in the complaint itself and requested to dismiss the petition.
7. As seen from the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner/A-3 attacked the de facto complainant with knife along with another accused and thereby caused bleeding injury on the right side and back side of the head. Thus, a specific overt act of causing injury to the de facto complainant is attributing to the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner along with others armed with rods and other deadly weapons with an intention to kill is sufficient and whether they caused grievous injuries or not is to be decided at the time of trial. But, at this stage the Court is required to examine whether there is sufficient material to conclude prima facie whether the petitioner involved in the alleged offence or not. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner that he caused injury to the de facto complainant with knife both on right side of the body and back side of the body, is sufficient to conclude prima facie involvement of the petitioner. However, mere discharge of injured on the same day is not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail. Whether they had any intention to kill them while causing injuries is the question to be decided after trial. But, at this stage it is difficult to express any opinion that they have no intention to kill the de facto complainant. 4 However, basing on the nature of the injuries and holding of knives, sticks, rods etc., the Court can draw a prima facie inference that they have intention to kill the de facto complainant. Grant of pre-arrest bail is not a matter of course, but it is a matter of expression and while granting bail, this Court has to take into consideration the gravity of the offence as held by the Apex Court in in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and Anr. etc., (Criminal Appeal Nos.525- 526 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.304-305 of 2012).
8. In Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others1 the Apex Court laid down the following factors to grant pre-arrest bail to a person, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with any cognizable offence.
i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
1 2010 (13) SC 247 5 ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
If those principles are applied to the present facts of the case, it is difficult to direct the Station House Officer to enlarge the petitioner on pre arrest bail.
9. Registration of case and counter case at best is sufficient to conclude that there was an attack and counter attack by one group against the other group but the question is with regard to intention to cause death, is a matter to be decided during the course of trial as to who is the aggressor. Therefore, registration of case and counter case is not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail at this stage. Hence, I find no merits in this case to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, at this stage. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 28.09.2020 KA 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4009 OF 2020 Date: 28.09.2020 KA