Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
I.A.No. 04 of 2023
in
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7951 OF 2023
ORDER:-
1. Heard Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the petitioner/State as well as Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/petitioner.
2. This application has been filed by the petitioner/State seeking to include the following additional conditions to the respondent/petitioner in the interim bail Order dated 31.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2023 & I.A.No.03 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023.
(a) The respondent/petitioner should not participate in political rallies, should not give political speeches and should not indulge in political activities.
(b) The respondent/petitioner shall refrain himself to appear before Print or Electronic Media or any social media platform to give any statement on any issue during the interim bail.
(c) The respondent/petitioner should confine himself to medical treatment alone.
(d) The respondent/petitioner shall not give any press interviews including both print and digital media nor make any public comments in connection with this case qua him or other co-accused.
T.M.R., J 2 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023
(e) Two officers of the rank of Dy.SPs shall accompany the respondent/petitioner to monitor and submit their report regularly to the Hon'ble Court.
3. As per the orders passed in I.A.No.01 of 2023 & I.A.No. 03 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023, this Court held that the petitioner/A.37 is entitled to interim bail, on medical grounds, for four (4) weeks from 31.10.2023 till 28.11.2023, on the following conditions:
1) The petitioner shall furnish a bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
2) The petitioner shall get himself examined/treated at a hospital of his choice at his expenses.
3) The petitioner shall provide the details about the treatment given to him and the hospital where he got treated, in a sealed cover, to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, at the time of his surrender, who in turn, shall forward the sealed cover intact to the trial Court.
4) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any other authority.
5) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, on or before 28.11.2023 at 5 P.M. T.M.R., J 3 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023
4. In the order passed in I.A.No.04 of 2023 in Crl.P.No. 7951 of 2023, this Court imposed two additional conditions, which reads as follows:
"The respondent/petitioner is directed not to participate in political rallies and give any press interviews including both print and digital media nor make any public comments in connection with this case until disposal of this petition."
5. The Learned Additional Advocate General contends that there is every apprehension that the respondent/petitioner may engage in political activities, political rallies, and political speeches shortly after being released from prison. Such actions would be in contravention of the order issued by this Court in I.A.No. 01 of 2023 & I.A.No. 03 of 2023. The interim bail was granted by this Court solely for the purpose of the petitioner's medical examination and treatment on humanitarian grounds. As a result, the petitioner/State has put forth a request to introduce supplementary conditions to the aforementioned interim bail order, as referenced above.
(a) The Learned Additional Advocate General, representing the Petitioner/State, argues that interim bail should not be equated with regular bail. The suggested condition requiring the presence of two Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) to accompany the petitioner T.M.R., J 4 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 is not intended to curtail his freedom of movement but is rather a measure to ensure compliance with the specified conditions and to monitor whether the petitioner adheres to them. This approach does not infringe upon the Fundamental Rights of the respondent/petitioner; rather, it is aimed at upholding the Fundamental Principles set out in the order.
6. Per Contra, the Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent/petitioner contends that in accordance with Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the court is empowered to impose conditions in the pursuit of justice. However, these conditions should not jeopardize the liberty of the accused. Such directives should serve as a guide for the administration of justice, aiming to strike a balance between the accused's freedom and the interests of justice, rather than hindering the former. Any additional conditions should primarily serve the interest of the investigation and should not be arbitrary or whimsical. These conditions should not be unduly burdensome or irrational. Furthermore, the Learned Senior Counsel asserts that the relevance of these additional conditions should be assessed in terms of their contribution to the investigation, emphasizing the need for a proper equilibrium between the public interest and the rights T.M.R., J 5 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 of the accused. He placed reliance on the decisions in (1) Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra and another1; (2) Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and others2 and (3) M. Hasan and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others3.
(a) The Learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent/petitioner further asserts in support of the
contentions presented in the counter that he is approximately 73 years old and has been a prominent public figure for the past 45 years. Currently, he holds the positions of Leader of Opposition and National President of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), and he has previously served as the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh for over 14 years. The petitioner further emphasized that upon a cursory examination of the suggested additional conditions, it becomes evident that all these conditions have a political nature and do not primarily serve the purpose of safeguarding the investigation in the current case. The proposed broad bail condition resembles a type of restriction on the respondent/petitioner's freedom of speech, akin to a gag order, which encroaches upon his constitutional right to speech. It is vital to note that Articles 14, 19, and 21 1 (2020) 10 SCC 77 2 (1978) 4 SCC 494 3 MANU/AP/0288/1997 T.M.R., J 6 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 of the Constitution of India extend their protections even to individuals in custody, and these rights cannot be curtailed under the pretext of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, the proposed additional conditions, as sought by the petitioner/State, obstruct the fundamental rights and day-to- day activities of the respondent/petitioner.
(b) He further contends that the suggested condition is unwarranted and put excessive surveillance on the respondent/petitioner's daily activities and furthermore, it infringes upon his right to privacy. It is worth noting that the respondent/petitioner is already under the protection of the National Security Guard, rendering the request for two Deputy Superintendents of Police (Dy.SPs) to accompany and monitor him entirely redundant. In fact, it seems that this proposal is being put forth with the intention of imposing a punitive and enduring psychological impact of imprisonment on the respondent/petitioner. Additionally, it is contended that the prosecution has failed to establish how the bail conditions previously imposed by this Court, when granting interim bail, are insufficient to safeguard the ongoing investigation. The proposed additional conditions not only give the impression of political bias but also violate fundamental rights.
T.M.R., J 7 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023
7. The petitioner/State submitted a Memo dated 01.11.2023, stating that this Court was pleased to impose additional conditions in the presence of learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. Following the issuance of these orders, they were promptly conveyed via WhatsApp message to Sri G.V.L. Murthy, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, and to the Chief Security Officer of the respondent/petitioner. Furthermore, the orders were made accessible on the High Court's website. It is worth noting that, in utter disregard and violation of the conditions set forth in the interim bail order dated 31.10.2023 in I.A.No. 01 of 2023 & I.A.No. 03 of 2023, as well as I.A.No. 04 of 2023 in Crl.P.No. 7951 of 2023, the respondent/petitioner addressed the media immediately after his release, just outside the Central Prison in Rajahmundry. During this interaction, he exclusively discussed the ongoing investigation and asserted his innocence.
(a) The petitioner/state further submits that, in spite of the High Court's orders receiving immediate and widespread coverage through electronic media, Sri K. Atchan Naidu, who is a co-accused (A.38) in the ongoing case, along with other party leaders, intentionally orchestrated the mobilization of T.M.R., J 8 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 people onto the streets. The individuals involved were not merely bystanders or local residents but were evidently supporters of the TDP, as evident from enclosed videos where they were seen waving TDP flags and chanting slogans in support of the respondent/petitioner. These actions disregarded the efforts of the deployed police personnel responsible for security. Although the respondent/petitioner did not exit the vehicle or address the crowd, he deliberately kept the vehicle's lights on while seated in the front, making himself visible to the public outside. Furthermore, he took no measures to discourage his party leaders from engaging in a clear violation of the orders issued by this Court. The journey took approximately 13 hours from Rajahmundry to Undavalli, leading to significant security and logistical challenges for the security personnel along the entire route. Transcripts of the speeches delivered by the respondent/petitioner shortly after his release from prison and the associated political activities are presented to this Court in the form of written materials and on a pen drive.
8. As per Section 439(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the concerned High Court or Court of Sessions is empowered to impose any such T.M.R., J 9 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 conditions which it considers necessary, while granting bail in cases specified under Section 437(3) Cr. P.C. Section 439(1)(a) of Cr. P.C. reads as under:
"...that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in subsection (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; ..."
Section 437(3) of Cr. P.C. reads as under:
"...(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Penal Code, 1860 or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub- section (1), the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary- (a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or (b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or (c) otherwise in the interests of justice.
9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the plea taken in Para No.15 of the affidavit submitted by the respondent- petitioner herein in I.A.No.3 of 2023, and it reads as follows:
"The petitioner also undertakes to abide by any condition as imposed by this Hon‟ble Court while granting interim bail."
T.M.R., J 10 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023
10. In Parvez Noordin's case, (1 supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"11.7. While the court which grants bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can impose conditions which ensure the presence of the accused to face trial, the conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and not result in the arbitrary deprivation of the right to livelihood.
xxx
14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression "any condition ... otherwise in the interest of justice" has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.
xxx
22. xxxx The conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing the conditions."
11. In Sunil Batra's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
"213. There are certain broad submissions common to both the petitions and they may first be dealt with before turning to specific contentions in each petition. It is no more T.M.R., J 11 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 open to debate that convicts are not wholly denuded of their fundamental rights. No iron curtain can be drawn between the prisoner and the Constitution. Prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally curtailed (see Procunier v. Martinex [40 L Ed 2d 224 at 248 (1974)]). However, a prisoner's liberty is in the very nature or things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement. His interest in the limited liberty left to him is then all the more substantial. Conviction for crime does not reduce the person into a non-person whose rights are subject to the whim of the prison administration and, therefore, the imposition of any major punishment within the prison system is conditional upon the observance of procedural safeguards (see Wolff v. McDonell [41 L Ed 2d 935 at 973 (1974)]). By the very fact of the incarceration, prisoners are not in a position to enjoy the full panoply of fundamental rights because these very rights are subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of the regime to which they have been lawfully committed. In D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. Sate of A.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 185 :
(1975) 2 SCR 24] one of us, Chandrachud, J., observed: (SCC pp. 186-87, para 6) "Convicts are not, by mere reason of the conviction, denuded of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise possess. A compulsion under the authority of law, following upon a conviction, to live in a prison-house entails by its own force the deprivation of fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India or the right to „practice‟ a profession. A man of profession would thus stand stripped of his right to hold consultations while serving out his sentence. But the Constitution guarantees other freedoms like the right to acquire, hold and dispose of properly for the exercise of which incarceration can be no T.M.R., J 12 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 impediment. Likewise, even a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
12. In M. Hasan's case (3 supra), the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, observed as under:
"20. xxxxx In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (AIR 1980 SC 1579) cited supra, the Supreme Court held as follows (at p. 1583 of AIR):--
"Prisons are built with stones of law and so it behooves the Court to insist that, in the eye of law, prisoners are persons, not animals, and punish the deviant „guardians‟ of the prison system where they go berserk and defile the dignity of the human inmate. Prison houses are part of Indian earth and the Indian Constitution cannot be held at bay by jail officials „dressed in a little, brief authority‟, when Part III is invoked by a convict. For when a prisoner is traumatized, the Constitution suffers a shock. And when the Court takes cognizance of such violence and violation if does, like the hound of Heaven, „But with unhurrying chase. And unperturbed pace. Deliberate speed and Majestic instancy‟ follow the official offender and frown down the outlaw adventure."
24. xxx it is clear that the right of freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and circulate one's ideas, opinions and views with complete freedom and by resorting to any available means of publications subject: again to such restrictions as could be legitimately imposed under Art. 19(2). Imposition of pre-censorship criticized by the Courts as unreasonable restrictions on T.M.R., J 13 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 the liberty of the press which is included in Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
27. xxx In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCJ 128, while dealing on the issue relating to pre- censorship of movies and motion pictures, the Supreme Court held as follows:
xxx Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicks and of convenience or expediency. Open criticism of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting. We must practice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself....."
13. This Court finds force in the respondent/petitioner's submission, emphasizing that when imposing additional conditions, it is essential for the Court to assess whether such conditions contribute to the advancement of the investigation.
14. In the light of the above legal position, now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the proposed conditions serve the interest of investigation, or they are arbitrary and whimsical in nature?"
15. The Learned Additional Advocate General, asserts that while this Court has taken into consideration the judgments of T.M.R., J 14 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred to in its order dated 31.10.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 and I.A.No.03 of 2023, but it has not chosen to impose the same conditions that were imposed in those decisions. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer the decision reported in Career Institute Educational Society vs. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society4 to appreciate the petitioner's contention, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"The first judgment in State of Gujarat (supra) applies, what is called, "the inversion test" to identify what is ratio decidendi in a judgment. To test whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed, i.e. to remove from the text of the judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case would still have been the same even without examining the proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case.
In Jayant Verma (supra), this Court has referred to an earlier decision of this Court in Dalbir Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab to state that it is not the findings of material facts, direct and inferential, but the statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts, which is the vital element in the decision and operates as a precedent. Even the conclusion does not operate as a precedent, albeit operates as res 4 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 380 T.M.R., J 15 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 judicata. Thus, it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided and, for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the obiter dicta."
16. For instance, when the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a bail application, directed the accused to submit their passport, it does not automatically imply that such a condition must be universally imposed in all bail cases, irrespective of whether the accused has a passport or if it is relevant to the case at hand. This Court firmly believes that the imposition of conditions in bail applications should be assessed on a case- by-case basis. The conditions ordered in the judgment relied upon were specific to the facts and circumstances of that particular case, and they were formulated to address the concerns and considerations relevant to that case alone. Bail conditions are not one-size-fits-all, and their specificity is intended to address the unique features of each case. Conditions that are not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case need not be incorporated. When this Court ascertained learned Additional Advocate General as to why the request was not put forth for imposition of conditions specified in the referenced judgments, while T.M.R., J 16 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 addressing the arguments in I.A.No.1 of 2023 and I.A.No.3 of 2023, he submitted that it is impossible to predict the outcome of the Court's decision. While addressing the arguments in I.A.No. 01 of 2023 and I.A.No. 03 of 2023, though, the learned Additional Advocate General, even if confident in his case, should have presented such a request as an alternative, without implying a concession to the petitioner's request to grant interim bail on medical grounds. Making such a request would not, at any stretch of imagination, be construed as an acknowledgment of an intention to grant interim bail by the learned Additional Advocate General.
17. This Court granted interim bail based on the respondent's health condition. However, it is essential to clarify that the interim bail granted on health grounds should not be equated with custodial bail. In this context, the Court finds force the argument put forth by the respondent's Counsel, emphasizing that the assignment of two Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) to the respondent's residence would constitute a breach of his right to privacy.
18. The respondent's contention is explicitly stated as being a case of political vendetta, wherein the prosecution has T.M.R., J 17 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 allegedly acted under the influence of the ruling party to incapacitate the respondent/petitioner from engaging in his political activities. This is particularly pertinent in light of the upcoming State Elections, scheduled for early next year.
19. Regarding this matter, the investigation agency is expected to clarify as to how is it concerned with the respondent/petitioner's political activities. Furthermore, it should explain how the imposition of conditions related to political activities would contribute to the investigative process. This Court attaches significant weight to the respondent's argument that any additional conditions should be exclusively geared towards serving the interest of the investigation.
20. It is evident that the respondent holds the position of National President of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). Restricting the respondent from appearing before print, electronic media, or any social media platform to make statements or express opinions during his interim bail period affects his fundamental right to freedom of speech. Simply because interim bail was granted on health grounds, it does not automatically imply that he is not entitled to continue his usual activities, which include expressing his views as he did T.M.R., J 18 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 prior to his arrest. As the President of a political party, the respondent has an inherent responsibility to express his opinion on various issues within the State, particularly with regard to State policies. He should not be subjected to restrictions in his political activities. If such restrictions are imposed, it could significantly impact the electoral prospects of the respondent's political party.
21. The Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the respondent/petitioner deviated from the conditions imposed by this Court and participated in a political rally while giving political speeches. In support of this argument, the petitioner submitted a memo on 01.11.2023 along with transcripts of the respondent's speech delivered shortly after his release from prison and the activities he engaged in following his release on a pen drive. However, the evidence presented does not indicate that the respondent organized the political rally or conducted a public meeting. It demonstrates that several people gathered to greet him after his release, and he expressed gratitude to them. It is essential to recognize that the respondent may not be in a position to prevent people from coming to see him, and it is natural for him to respond when people greet him. This Court cannot T.M.R., J 19 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 issue directives to prevent people from visiting the respondent. The presence of people who came to see him should not be viewed as detrimental to the ongoing investigation in this case. At most, the State may have the capacity to manage the crowd, but it cannot be expected that the respondent should do so as well. Upon careful examination of the presented material, this Court finds no evidence to suggest that the respondent violated the Court's order. It is important to note that during the interim bail application, the respondent did not request permission to conduct rallies and public meetings. If the respondent had requested in I.A.No.1 of 2023 & I.A.No.3 of 2023 this Court's permission to hold such events in addition to seeking medical treatment, it raises the question of whether this Court would have granted interim bail under those circumstances.
22. After a thorough review of the material at hand, this Court is inclined to instruct the respondent not to engage in political rallies and public meetings. It is important to note that this is not a blanket ban or a violation of his fundamental rights but rather a reasonable restriction imposed by the Court. The intention is to maintain legal order while causing the least possible interference with the respondent's T.M.R., J 20 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 convenience and fundamental rights. The proposed condition can be considered as a balanced approach that does not conflict with the competing rights of the prosecution agency or the respondent.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to add conditions, stipulating the respondent/petitioner should abstain from making any public comments related to this case and from organizing or participating in public rallies and meetings, in addition to the conditions already set forth in the Common Order, dated 31.10.2023, in I.A.No. 01 of 2023 and I.A.No. 03 of 2023. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 03.11.2023 MS T.M.R., J 21 I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.7951 of 2023 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.No.04 of 2023 in CRIMINAL PETITION No.7951 OF 2023 Date: 03.11.2023 MS