Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gundapu Chinna Babu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
[ 2607 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY : PRESENT: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3983 OF 2020 Between: 1, Gundapu Chinna Babu, S/o Ganga Raju, Aged 32 years Caste Mala, Resident of Door No.3-152/A, Behind Railway Gatemen Room, VGA Road, Tenneru Village and Post, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. (A-1) Jetty Madhu Babu, S/o Sambaiah(Late) Aged 39 years Caste Mala, Resident of D.No.1-7A, Revendrapadu village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District. (A-2) Tadiparti Omree @ Ratnaiah, Son of Subaiah Aged 37 years Caste Madiga, Resident of Door No.3A-14-1, Midarsh Hall Street, Old Railway Goods Shed Road, Simhapuri colony, Palakollu Town and Mandal West Godavari District. (A- 3) Gundapu Karuna Kumar, Son of Gangaraju, Aged 28 years caste mala Resident of Door No.3A-14-1, Midarsh Hall Street, Old Railway Goods Shed Road, Simhapuri colony, Palakollu Town and Mandal West Godavari District. (A-4) . Komari Tata Rao, Son of Damodaram (Late) Aged 50 Years Caste Bestha, Resident of Door No.3A-14-1, Midarsh Hall Street, Old Railway Goods Shed Road, Simhapuri colony, Palakollu Town and Mandal West Godavari District. (AS) Modiyam Veera Bhadram @ Benzmen, Son of Gangulu aged 50 years Caste koya, Resident of Door No.3A-14-1, Midarsh Hall Street, Old Railway Goods Shed Road, Simhapuri colony, Palakollu Town and Mandal West Godavari District. (A-8) ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5 & 8 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Amaravati ...Respondent Petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in the Criminal Petition here with, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8 on bail in Crime No.309/2020 on the file of the Kankipadu Police Station, Krishna 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 Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER
-- ae THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3983 OF 2020 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Sections 439 and 437 Cr.P.C to release the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 and A.8 on bail in Cr.No.309/2020 pending on the file of Kanikapadu Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) SC & ST (POA) Act, 2015. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 04.09.2020.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that, on 04.09.2020, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanikapadu Police Station recorded the statement of defacto complainant, who was admitted in ESI Hospital at Vijayawada from 21.00 hours to 22.00 hours, wherein the defacto complainant stated that he is a painter by profession, many years ago, there was a dispute between them and a voluntary organization "Ohel" pertaining to boundaries of the land of burial ground.
3. While so, on 04.09.2020 at about 5.00 PM when the defacto complainant went to throw the garbage into a dustbin, he found one Metta Ashok was returning from the field, near the Railway Station, Tenneru and that while both of them reached the Tenneru Railway Station, one Gandapadu China Babu and Jetti Madhu, who are residing in the building of "Ohel" voluntary organization, which is adjacent to the Railway Station, intercepted both of them and threatened them by shouting as "Madiga Lanjakondakallara mee smasananiki maa polam kavalsi vachindhira, na kondakallara mimmalni bratakanivvam' .
4. The main contention of petitioners in the present petition is that the alleged registration of crime against these petitioners for various offences is a serious illegality. Except the 5th petitioner all the other petitioners are the members of SC community, but no caste certificates are produced to accept this contention. However, the specific overt act attributed against these petitioners, is prima facie only an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
5. On the other hand, there is a civil dispute between the parties. One S.Nityajeev Naidu filed a civil suit against 6 persons and that too these petitioners. are also victims in the hands of the defacto complainant and his members. But, a case is registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149 IPC, Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) SC & ST (POA) Act, 2015 vide Cr.No.310/2020 of Kanikapadu Police Station, Krishna District. Thus, there are case and counter cases, but for one reason or the other, the police registered a crime against these petitioners for the grave offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and that the petitioners were implicated falsely without any material and requested to enlarge these petitioners on bail, as they are languishing in jail since 04.09.2020.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad mainly contended that entire investigation in this case is completed and the petitioners actually are the victims in the hands of the defacto complainant and his supporters. But, only against these petitioners Section 307 IPC is included in the FIR, while registering crime for lesser offences against the defacto complainant or the other. Major part of investigation in this case is completed, but their inference in the "SEE 3 investigation does not arise and requested to enlarge these petitioners on bail. Whereas, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State contended that so far only nine (09) witnesses are examined and the injured person was discharged from the hospital, and requested to dismiss the petition.
7. As seen from the material available on record, only some of the petitioners belonged to SC community, but they did not produce any caste certificates to accept this petition. Therefore, the contention of petitioners that they are the members of SC community is rejected, leaving it open to the petitioners to raise such contention at appropriate stage.
8. The specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners are that one Gandapadu Chinababu (A.1) sprinkled chilli powder into their eyes and hacked the defacto complainant with knife on his head and he sustained bleeding injury on the right side of his head and that one Madhu (A.2) beat both of them with a stick indiscriminately and that Tadipatri Omri (A.3), Gundapu Karunakara Rao (A.4), Komaari Tata Rao (A.5), Buduru Sudhakar (A.6), Balli Pratap (A.7) and Mediam Benjamin (A.8) were present at the time of attack. Thus, the specific overt acts are attributed against petitioners 1 and 2 (A.1 and A.2) only and nothing is attributed against the petitioners 3 to 6 (A.3 to A.5 and A.8). Therefore, mere presence without any overt act is not sufficient to enrope them with the serious offences and more particularly when the major part of investigation is completed, by examining nine (09) witnesses, as fairly conceded by the Public Prosecutor, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
To, Oak wWNh * 8
9. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bafina vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.1348 of 2014) wherein the Court considered the scope of Sections 434 and 439 Cr.P.C and the circumstances for grant of regular bail. But, the principles laid down in the above judgment is not in dispute but unnecessary, are not necessary, in view of the completion of major part of investigation, as discussed above, and the case and counter case are pending with the police for investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the completion of major part of investigation, I find itis a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed enlarging the petitioners on bail on execution of their bonds for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands only) each, with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge for the Trial of the cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, on further condition that the petitioners shall stay at Kanikapadu village, for a period of one month or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier and cooperate with the investigating agency, in view of initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C, as there is law and order problem.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. L_ Sd/- R. KARTHIKEYAN J ASSISTANT REGISTRA TRUE COPY// «A For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR The Special Court for the Trail of the cases arising under SC & ST (POA) Act, cum -- Ill Addl. District Judge at Vijayawada.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry.
The Station House Officer, Kankipadu Police Station, Krishna District.
One CC to Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One spare copy HIGH COURT MSMJ DATED: 24/09/2020 ORDER CRLP.No.3983 of 2020 DIRECTION