Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gorikipudi Mallikarjuna Rao ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 July, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5134 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, „Cr.P.C.‟), seeking anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/A-2 in Cr.No.68 of 2022 of Pamidimukkala Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 353, 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4(1)(1A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on credible information regarding illegal digging of soil at Meduru village outskirts near Juvvalapalem pond, the Revenue Inspector, Pamidimukkala Mandal along with Special Enforcement Team, a constable and other staff reached the place and appraised the persons present there that they have no permission to dig earth, then the petitioner (surpanch‟s husband of Meduru village), Madhapaka Mahesh along with their followers came and intercepted them. On being informed about the said incident, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pamidimukkala, sent two beat constables to that place and as one constable was filming the incident, M.Mahesh came upon the constable and pushed him to ground and beat on his head with stick causing bleeding injury. On receiving the information, thereafter, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pamidimukkala came to that place, thereupon the petitioner and other accused ran away from that 2 place. On the report given by the Revenue Inspector, the present crime has been registered.
3. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the police completed the investigation and filed charge sheet wherein the petitioner was shown as absconded. In fact, the petitioner was very much available in the village and he is the husband of the surpanch of the village.
The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner got filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.806 of 2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, without looking into the material available on record and without considering the fact that entire investigation was completed, dismissed the said application vide orders dated 07.07.2022.
The learned counsel would further submit that except the mere presence of the petitioner at the place of incident, no overt act is attributed against him and thus no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner.
The learned counsel wound further submit that the injured received simple injuries and initially the case was registered under Section 332 IPC along with other provisions of 3 law and since the injured is a police constable, later, Section 307 IPC was added.
The learned counsel would further submit that even as per the prosecution version the petitioner is not the person that caused injuries to the injured person.
The learned counsel would further submit that the co- accused, including A-1 against whom the overt act of causing injury to the police constable was attributed, were enlarged on bail.
On the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that though the overt act of causing injury to the injured is not attributed to be petitioner, he being the husband of the surpanch of the village was present at the time and place of the incident and he led the group.
The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the police completed the investigation and as the petitioner was absconding police filed absconded charge sheet against the petitioner/A-2.
The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that if the petitioner/A-2 was granted bail, he would abscond and delay the progress of trial. 4
The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, in support of his contention has relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sanatan Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7358 of 2021) that as the petitioner is found absconding while filing charge sheet, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. The relevant portion relied on by the learned Special Assistant Public prosecutor is extracted hereunder:
"3.1 .....Thus, from the aforesaid it is found that there is a prima facie case found against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and even the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is found to be absconding. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating the investigating agency and absconding and against whom not only non-bailable warrant has been issued but also the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued."
On the above contentions, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed anticipatory bail and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. In the decision relied on by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the Court shall not come to the rescue of the accused against whom not only non-bailable warrant but also the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. In the case on hand, such is not the issue in the present case and hence the decision relied on by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. The petitioner‟s application in Crl.M.P.No.806 of 2022 filed for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed on 07.07.2022. As 5 per the case of the prosecution, the overt act attributed against the petitioner is that he obstructed the revenue and police officials when they tried to stop illegal mining of sand. Thus, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not the person that caused bleeding injuries to the police constable. The entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed.
8. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A-2. The apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor has duly been taken care of by imposing the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner/A-2 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.68 of 2022 of Pamidimukkala Police Station, Krishna District, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the SHO, Pamidimukkala Police Station, Krishna District.
(ii) On release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Pamidimukkala Police Station, Krishna District, twice in a month i.e. on every second Sunday and fourth Saturday between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till completion of trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not coerce, threat or induce the witnesses in whatsoever manner.6
(iv) The petitioner shall attend the trial Court without fail and he shall not seek adjournment on whatsoever count.
The petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and any infraction thereof will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation.
_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 22.07.2022 SPP 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5134 of 2022 Date : 22.07.2022 SPP