Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pulicherla Murali Krishna Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 July, 2024
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010258222024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3327]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4135/2024
Between:
Pulicherla Murali Krishna Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
and Others
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order:
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners herein/A15 and A16, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.75 of 2024 of SVU Campus, Tirupathi District.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 324, 427, 120B read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC').
2
3. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 14.05.2024 at 3.00 PM at the premises of Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati, the de facto complainant went to Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati in his car bearing registration No.AP03 CD 6688 along with his gunman, driver viz. Ranjith and his attendant Saravana to attend the strong room inspection at the time of deposit of EVM boxes and its preservation procedure. At that time, when he was about to reach at a near distance to the strong room, the followers of MLA viz. C.Bhaskar Reddy and his son C.Mohit Reddy, his followers petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 along with his men with a criminal conspiracy and common intention, armed with deadly weapons i.e. hammer, iron rods, beer bottles and cricket bats were alleged to have attacked them by obstructing his car. They were alleged to have damaged the car and attempted to commit murder of de facto complainant by hacking and beating him with deadly weapons. The petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 were alleged to have attacked him and caused injuries to his left shoulder and caused dumb injuries on his body and when his gunman came to his rescue, A1 was alleged to have beaten him with a big hammer and tried to kill him and caused grievous injury. Basing on the report of de facto complainant, a case in Crime 3 No.75 of 2024 of SVU Campus, Tirupathi District was registered for the alleged offences and investigated into.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 contends that petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 were arrested on 16.05.2024 and since then, they are in judicial remand. Major portion of investigation has been completed except filing of charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the present crime, A1 and A2 were enlarged on bail as per orders of this Court in Crl.P.No.3900 of 2024, dated 01.07.2024.
5. On the contrary, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that all the accused in a mob attacked the de facto complainant. According to him, the police have to identify the assailants by watching the videograph, unless the Test Identification Parade is conducted, it is difficult to identify them. He further submits that along with de facto complainant, one public servant viz. Dharani Kumar was also got injured.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
7. On the date of the incident, the contesting candidate, who is the de facto complainant and another went to Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupathi in his car along with his gunman to attend the strong room inspection at the time of deposit of EVM 4 boxes and its preservation as per the schedule served to him. The accused conspired together and with a common intention, armed with deadly weapons had damaged the car and attempted to beat with rods and beer bottles. The petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 were alleged to have attacked the de facto complainant and caused injury to his left shoulder and dumb injuries on his body parts. On seeing the same, the gunman of the de facto complainant had come to his rescue. It is alleged that the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 attacked him and caused grievous injuries to him. At that point of time, the gunman has opened fire and the assailants ran away by leaving their vehicles.
8. This Court has perused the Wound Certificate of public servant viz. M.Dharani Kumar and de facto complainant viz. Pullivarthi Venkata Muni Prasad. Insofar as the Wound Certificate in respect of de facto complainant viz. Pullivarthi Venkata Muni Prasad, the Doctor opined that the injury Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are simple in nature and no abnormality has been found on the injuries received by him.
9. In respect of injured viz. M.Dharani Kumar, on Radiological examination, two injuries were found i.e. (1) the laceration injury of 2 x 1 x 0.5 cms near left eyebrow, and (2) pain and swelling of right ring finger. On Radiological X-ray opinion, the Doctor found 5 that fracture dislocation of proximal interphalangeal joint and base of middle phalanx of ring finger. The Doctor opined that the injury No.(1) near left eyebrow is simple in nature and injury No.(2) pain and swelling to right ring finger appears to be grievous in nature. At the same time, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that both injured were discharged from the hospital. The petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 were arrested on 16.05.2024 and since then, they are in judicial remand.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously contends that at this stage, bail application of the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 cannot be considered, for the reason that, Test Identification Parade has to be conducted. According to him, since the accused and other persons in the mob were alleged to have attacked the de facto complainant, unless and until the Test Identification Parade is conducted, the accused cannot be identified.
11. If such is the case, this Court is of the opinion that for the last 45 days the police would have not done the same, but quite surprisingly, without there being any identification of the accused, petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 have been languishing in jail to identify the other accused. It is unheard that for the said purpose, the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 should be detained in jail. 6
12. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant contends that there is a threat to the life of de facto complainant and another. He relied upon a decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarka Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation in paragraph No.14, which goes to show that "this Court in specific terms held that the condition laid down under Section 437 (1) (i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 CrPC." It is further observed that "the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty." There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.
13. However, on this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the principle laid down in the Judgment in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation2. Merely because, the other accused in the mob are to be identified, the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 need not be detained in the prison further. Since video of entire incident is available, there is no reason, why the other 1 (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 528.
2(2022) 10 SCC 51.
7assailants could not be identified till today. Since, the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 are languishing in jail for more than 45 days, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16. The petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 are permanent residents, having fixed abode. There is no flight risk.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16, on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi.
(ii) On release, the petitioners herein/ A15 and A16 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e. on every Friday between 10.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 10.07.2024.
Vnb 8 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Petition No.4135 of 2024 Dated:10.07.2024 Vnb