Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ambati Chaithanya Chakri vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 632 OF 2021 Between: ; Ambati chaithanya @ Chakri, S/o. Ambati Narasinga Rao, Aged about 24 Years, Occ: R/o. D.No.7:172, Swarnabharathi nagar, Chinnagadili, Pedarushi Konda, Gitam Post, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam district. .. .Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Police, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi ...Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.9 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of Arrest in Crime No.802 of 2020 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the ~ Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER:
os THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 632 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 to the petitioner/A9 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 802 of 2020 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 427 read with 34 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC ST (POA) Act').
2. The case of prosecution is that a complaint was lodged stating that on 03.10.2020 when the complainant along with his friend Narendra was standing at Y.S.R. statute at around 5:00 P.M. one Narendra called one Vinod and expressed apology with regard to the quarrel that took place between them but said Vinod picked up quarrel with the complainant and his friend and went away by shouting that he will see their end. Thereafter on the same day when the complainant went to Chintal Agraharam Shivalayam, said Vinod came along with five others and started beating the complainant. The complainant ran from the said place to nearby house and he was rescued by one person. On 04.10.2020 the complainant received phone call from one Shanmukh asking him to come to Sujatha Nagar bus stop and threatened to kill him if he fails. In the complaint he has narrated how he was taken to open place and attacked by the accused. It is also alleged that Shanmukh called the petitioner who instigated Se -
ener, 2 the other accused to kill the complainant, but the cdmplainant managed to escape from them. The accused searched for him for three hours, damaged his vehicle and took away Rs.30,000/- from his vehicle. Basing on the said complaint the present crime is registered in which the petitioner is arrayed as AQ.
3. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case only with an intention to harass him. He further submits the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he had directed the other accused to kill the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner has abused him in the name of caste. As such the offences under the provisions of SC ST (POA) Act are not attracted to the petitioner.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the petitioner has instigated the other accused to kill the complainant and on instructions he submits that though the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature investigation is pending. Hence, at this stage the petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail.
6. From a perusal of the complaint it is clear that in the entire complaint, except stating that one Shankukh called the petitioner over phone, who directed the other accused to kill the complainant, no other allegations including abusing in the name of the caste are attributed against him and even the petitioner was not physically present at the scene of offence. .
7. Taking into consideration the above and as the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
8, Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/A9 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 802 of 2020 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City on 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, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
po a Sd/-K.TataRao o | SECTION OFFICER IITRUE COPY// aan negate itm?
For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR _ The Station House Officer, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District \ . One CC to Sri. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] _ Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] . One spare copy HIGH COURT LKJ DATED:12/02/2021 ORDER CRLP.No.632 of 2021 ALLOWED