Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yaragorla Nagesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5202, 5375 and 5468 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since all the criminal petitions arise in same crime and as they are heard together, they are now to be disposed of by this common order.
2. Crl.P.No.5202 of 2024, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.5 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 436, 450, 452, 506 and120-B read with 149 of I.P.C.
3. Crl.P.No.5375 of 2024, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioners/A.9, A.10, A.12, A.26, A.33, A.41, A.44, A.48, A.57, A.58, A.59, A.60, A.66 and A.70 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 436, 450, 452, 506 and120-B read with 149 of I.P.C.
4. Crl.P.No.5468 of 2024, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.38 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 436, 450, 452, 506 and120-B read with 149 of I.P.C.
5. Heard arguments of Sri K.V.K.Vikram Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.5202 of 2024, Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.No.5375 of 2024 and Sri Varun Byreddy, the learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.5468 of 2024 and Sri K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
6. There are two prominent recognized political parties in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The crime incident in this case took place on 20.02.2023. The scene of offence is situated in TDP party office located in Sri Nagar Colony, Gannavaram Village 3 within the limits of Gannavaram Police Station. The incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023 at about 5.00 P.M. in the evening. This is a case of mob violence, criminal conspiracy, arson of dwelling house, house trespass having made preparation for causing hurt, rioting, armed with deadly weapons, mischief by fire or explosive substance and intentional insults and intimidation at TDP office.
7. The allegations in these cases against the petitioners are that:
• The de facto complainant-Mudunuri Satyavardhan is a resident of Gannavaram Village and he is working as a Computer Operator in TDP party office, which situated in Sri Nagar Colony in Gannavarm. He lives in the party office. Thus, it is his place of work as well as place of residence.
• On 18.02.2023, in the afternoon, Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan, who is Ex-MLA for Gannavaram Assembly conducted a press meet and he made some allegations against Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh and their family members by insulting them using un- 4 parliamentary language. In this connection, one Jasti Venkateswara Rao, who is TDP Party President for Gannavaram Assembly constituency along with Sri Dontu Chinna, along with some other TDP leaders conducted press meet on the next day i.e., on 19-02-2023 at 10 A.M. in TDP Party office, Gannavaram and condemned the allegations made by the EX-MLA Sri VallabhaneniVamsi Mohan.
• On 20.02.2023, the de facto complainant, the office boy Pitta Mahesh and car driver Kalyani were present in the office. At about 5 P.M., Sri Vallabaneni Vamsi and Sri Katru Seshu along with others went to TDP party office in two black colour scorpio cars bearing registration Nos.AP 39 LR 0333 and AP 39 LB 0333 threatened the de facto complainant and made enquires about the TDP leaders Pattabi and others and went away by stating that the future of TDP is finished.
• Thereafter at about 5.30 P.M. at the instigation of Sri Vamsi Mohan, the YSRCP leaders and followers of Gannavaram Assembly constituency i.e., A1 to A70 and 5 others conspired together to attack the TDP party office and accordingly they formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons viz., sticks, stone, cricket wickets and plastic petrol bottles trespassed into the office by raising slogans to cause harm to the TDP leaders who were present there. They had thrown stones on the office and broke glasses and mirrors and damaged body of the cars bearing Nos.AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and TS 10 EC 4099, which are stationed in the compound of the TDP office with sticks, stones and cricket wickets and later they entered into the party office room and caused damage to the furniture and computers in the office. Sri Rabbani (A.44) brought petrol can and poured petrol on car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and set it on fire, as a result the car was completely burnt. They also poured petrol on the walls in the room of TDP party office and set it on fire, thereby all the accused created panic situation at the office.
• The Fire Department was intimated about the incident by one Jasthi Kavitha (LW.8) and the Police, who were on duty at that time, saw the flames reacted swiftly and both 6 the police and the Fire Department staff extinguished the fire and thus prevented further spread of fire. • Upon seeing the incident, the Police personnel, who were present there, tried to prevent the acts of the accused but they did not heed the words of the Police and in fact deterred them from discharging their legitimate duties. • It is stated that the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District issued proceedings vide C.No.2834/C3/2023, dated 22.02.2023 directed Sri K.Vijaya Paul, the then SDPO, Gannavaram to conduct investigation in this case as per Rule 7(2) of SC/STs (POA) Act 1995. The Investigating Officer examined several witnesses and recorded their statements and opined that the offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not attracted. Therefore, the Sub-Inspector of Police was directed to continue the investigation. • Sri K. Nagaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police continued further investigation in this case. It is stated that on 13.08.2023 he inspected the place of offence and after examining several witnesses based on material collected, he added Sections 7 436, 450, 452 and 120B I.P.C. and arrested the accused and produced before the learned Magistrate. • The de facto complainant (LW.1) had identified 44 members as offenders and named them in his written information upon which FIR was registered. During investigation another 27 members were identified as accused. So far LW.1 to LW.36 (witnesses) were examined. Two alteration memos were filed on 08.07.2024 and 07.08.2024.
8. The petitioners/A.5, A.9, A.10, A.12, A.26, A.33, A.41, A.44, A.48, A.57, A.58, A.59, A.60, A.66 and A.70 in Crl.P.No.5202 of 2024 and Crl.P.No.5375 of 2024 were arrested and produced before the learned VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gannavaram. By an order, the learned Magistrate sent them to Judicial Custody on 10.07.2024. The petitioner/A.38 in Crl.P.No.5468 of 2024 was arrested on 02.08.2024 and was remanded to judicial custody.
9. The petitioners/A.5, A.9, A.10, A.12, A.26, A.33, A.41, A.44, A.48, A.57, A.58, A.59, A.60, A.66 and A.70 in Crl.P.No.5202 of 2024 and Crl.P.No.5375 of 2024 filed bail petitions before the 8 learned VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gannavaram which were dismissed on 29.07.2024.
10. The following points are urged in the bail petition filed by the petitioner/A.5 in Crl.P.No.5202 of 2024:
• The FIR registered against the petitioner in Crime No.137 of 2023 is arbitrary and unlawful.
• The respondent had altered penal Sections in order to harass the petitioner after one year of the alleged offence and is trying to make out a new case in order to harass the petitioner.
• The respondent had added the name of several persons after change of the Government. Initially, the police issued notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 505 read with 149 of I.P.C. on which FIR was registered. But now by adding the additional Sections without the knowledge of the accused and effected arrest. None of these penal provisions apply to the petitioner.
• This case is a counter blast to Crime No.132 of 2023 and Crime No.133 of 2024 of Gannavaram Police Station. 9 • The very victim stated during investigation that there was no caste abuse against him.
• The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada with mentioning the reasons which were not even alleged in remand report.
• The lower Court did not consider the delay in lodging the FIR on 22.02.2023 whereas offence committed on 20.02.2023.
• The Police officials after completion of 17 months, they added new Sections of law only after changing of the Government.
• The averments in the complaint do not disclose the alleged burning of the office premises to attract Section 435 of I.P.C. and there are no averments about Section 436 of I.P.C. as the alleged place of offence is TDP office but no where mentioned as dwelling house further to attract Sections 450 and 452 I.P.C. with regard to house-trespass punishable with imprisonment of life or to house trespass to cause offence or death or assaulting any person or for 10 wrongful restraint of any person but the lower court went beyond the material available.
• The petitioner belongs to an agricultural family and there are no criminal antecedents and he is a law abiding citizen and willing to attend before the respective court without fail. • The learned counsel for petitioner cited Nigil v. State of Kerala1.
11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed to grant regular bail to the Petitioner/A5 on the ground that there are specific overt acts against him as deposed by LWs. 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 to 31, 34, 35 and 36.
12. The following points are urged in the bail petition filed by the petitioners/A.9, A.10, A.12, A.26, A.33, A.41, A.44, A.48, A.57, A.58, A.59, A.60, A.66 and A.70 in Crl.P.No.5375 of 2024:
• The petitioners never committed any offence much less the offences alleged by the respondent and they have no acquaintance with the de facto complainant, and they are residents of different villages.
1 (2021) SCC OnLine Ker 453 11 • There were no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and they were falsely implicated due to change of political scenario.
• The offence took place on 20.02.2023 but the petitioners were arrested on 9.07.2024 after 17 months of the alleged offence.
• The investigation in the present case was completed long back and by deleting Sections of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cooked up story against the petitioners and there is no need of custodial interrogation of the petitioners/accused. • All the alleged offences are punishable with not more than 7 years imprisonment except Section 436 of I.P.C. which was later added to harass the petitioners.
13. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed to grant regular bail to the petitioners/A.9, A.10, A.12, A.26, A.33, A.41, A.44, A.48, A.57, A.58, A.59, A.60, A.66 and A.70 and a counter was filed raising the following grounds: 12
• Petitioner No.1/A.9 was previously involved in Crime No.184 of 2019 and Crime No.292 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act of Hanuman Junction Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 non-bailable offences and 3 are grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment.
• LWs.3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against the petitioner/A.9 and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27, & 28 at the scene of offence. • Petitioner No.2/A.10 was previously involved in Crime No.135 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 448, 506, 509, 143 and 147 of I.P.C of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 non- bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment.
• LWs.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against petitioner No.2/A.10 and the police 13 identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27, & 28 at the scene of offence. • Petitioner No.3/A.12 was previously involved in Crime No.118 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of I.P.C of Hanuman Junction Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 non- bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment.
• LWs.3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against petitioner No.3/A12 and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27 and 28 at the scene of offence.
• Petitioner No.4/A.26 was previously involved in Crime No.883 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City and he was involved in 4 non-bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment.
14• LWs.6, 20, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against petitioner No.4/A26 and A24-Sayed Siddhik @ Moula confessed. Police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27, & 28 at the scene of offence.
• Petitioner No.5/A.33 was previously involved in Crime No.198 of 2024 filed under Section 151 of Cr.P.C Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 non-bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment. • LWs.5, 21, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against petitioner No.5/A.33 and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27 and 28 at the scene of offence.
• Petitioner No.6/A.41 was previously involved in Crime No.135 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 448, 506, 509, 143 and 147 read with 149 of I.P.C and Crime No.138 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 352 and 435 read with 34 I.P.C of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 15 non-bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment.
• LWs.4, 22, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against petitioner No.6/A.41 and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27 and 28 at the scene of offence.
• Petitioner No.7/A.44 was previously involved in Crime No.127 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sections 427 and 451 read with 34 I.P.C. and Crime No.135 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 506 and 509 read with 149 I.P.C and Crime No.138 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 352 and 435 read with 34 I.P.C of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 non-bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment.
• LWs.2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against petitioner No.7/A.44 and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and 16 gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27 and 28 at the scene of offence.
• Petitioner No.8/A.48 was previously involved in 4 non- bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment.
• LWs.10, 19, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against petitioner No.8/A.48 and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27 and 28 at the scene of offence.
• Petitioner No.9/A.57 was previously involved in 4 non- bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment. LWs.23, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against him. • Petitioner No.10/A.58 was previously involved in Crime No.101 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C of Agiripilli Police Station, Eluru District and Crime No.379 of 2019 registered for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C and Crime No.148 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 354 17 and 506 of I.P.C of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 non-bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment. LWs.25, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against him.
• Petitioner No.11/A.59 was previously involved in 4 non- bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment. LWs.23, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against him and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27 and 28 at the scene of offence. • Petitioner No.12/A.60 was previously involved in Crime No.28 of 2018 registered for the offences under Section II- APGA, 11(1) (n)-PCAA, and Crime No.18 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 9-II-APGA, 11(1)
(n)-PCAA and Crime No.13 of 2020 and Crime No.18 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sections 118 of I.P.C, 9-II-APGA, 11(1) (n)-PCAA, Crime No.131 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 9-I-APGA, 11 (1)
(n)-PCAA, Crime No.46 of 2024 and Crime No.54 of 2024 18 registered for the offences under Sections 9-II-APGA, 11 (1) (n)-PCAA of Veerapalli Police Station and Crime No.82 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 118 and 286 of I.P.C., 32 of PA 1861 and Crime No.80 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 9-I-APGA of Atkuru Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 non-bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment. LWs.25, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against him. • Petitioner No.13/A.66 was previously involved in 4 non- bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are punishable with life imprisonment. LWs.24, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against him and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27 and 28 at the scene of offence. • Petitioner No.14/A.70 was previously involved in Crime No.261 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections 118 and 269 of I.P.C and 9-I-APGA of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District and he was involved in 4 non- bailable offences and 3 grievous offences which are 19 punishable with life imprisonment. LWs.24, 30 and 31 deposed the specific overt acts against him and the police identified him in the CC TV Footage and gathered evidence from LWs.10, 20, 27 and 28 at the scene of offence.
14. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State it is stated that all the present petitioners/A.9, A.10, A.12, A.26, A.33, A.41, A.44, A.48, A.57, A.58, A.59, A.60, A.66 and A.70 in Crl.P.No.5375 of 2024 have criminal antecedents which are non bailable offences. The prosecution established the prima facie case and basing on the evidence available on record it is stated that offences alleged against the petitioners are non-bailable offences.
15. According to the statements of concerned LW's and photos, the petitioners are at the scene of offence and as per the confessional statement of A24 more than 100 members were involved and only 71 accused were identified based on evidence available with the police as of now. If the petitioners are granted regular bail, they may tamper with the evidence with their high influence.
20
16. The following points are urged in the bail petition filed by the petitioner/A.38 Crl.P.No.5468 of 2024:
• The petitioner herein was falsely implicated and he is an innocent person and in no manner connected with alleged offence.
• There are no specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint.
• Even in the remand report, non -application of mind is manifestly evident and there is no basis to remand the petitioner.
• After 18 months of the occurrence of alleged offence police arrested the petitioner and there is inordinate delay in the investigation.
• There are no criminal antecedents and the petitioner is respectable citizen and will not evade the ends of justice.
17. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed to grant regular bail to the petitioner/A.38 on the ground that there are 21 specific overt acts against him as deposed by LWs.2, 21, 30 and
31.
18. Representing the State, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case of organized mob and releasing on bail would not serve a good example to other such persons with similar inclinations and these petitioners have criminal antecedents and they have got influence and they create political problems and they still hold their men in the department and using their help they are capable of tampering with the evidence.
19. These applicants pray for regular bail. The narration made above discloses the nature and gravity of the offences that are allegedly committed. At the stage of considering applications for bail any elaborate examination of evidence as well as furnishing reasons in detail touching the merits of the case should be avoided. This is a significant rule since any such endeavour may cause prejudice either to the case of the accused or to the case of the prosecution. However, there has always been a need to find out whether the material placed would show a prima facie 22 case - Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh2. Nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail, character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail are some of the important principles that shall be borne in mind while considering applications for bail - Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee3.
20. It is also relevant to bear in mind that pre-trial detention should never be viewed as if it is a punishment that accused deserve. Keeping in mind these principles this Court has to see the merit of the contentions raised as against the material placed by the prosecution against them.
21. In all these bail applications, the aspect of delay is raised by the applicants. The crime incident took place on 20.02.2023. The eyewitness is the de facto complainant and he lodged written 2 (2009) 14 SCC 286 3 (2010) 14 SCC 496 23 information on 22.02.2023. Thus, there is nearly two days gap in lodging F.I.R.
Soon after registration of F.I.R. investigation commenced and continued for a while and lost its momentum thereafter and once again the investigative endeavour picked up. In this process these petitioners were arrested nearly 17 months after the date of crime.
On the above facts, the learned counsels strong submission is that the case of the prosecution is suspicious and it is tainted with mala fides. The other contention raised in these bail applications is about change in the political party at the helm of affairs. At the time the incident occurred the YSR Congress Party was in power. By the time these accused were arrested Telugu Desam Party is in power.
22. On due consideration of the material on record, it must be stated here that these contentions have no merit. A perusal of the First Information Report lodged by the de facto complainant shows that when this incident occurred police were very much present at the scene of offence and it was in their presence the offence took place and the police remained spectators. If police 24 were present there and when they had seen the cognizable offences being committed in their presence, they were duty bound to initiate case which they failed to do. A reading of the F.I.R. also would show that the de facto complainant and the other persons of Telugu Desam Party who were present at the scene of offence were so panic stricken that they went away for their own safety. The fact that they could not withstand the trouble is apparent as they were fewer in number while the assailants were a group of nearly 100 people. This incident occurred at a time when there was no political change in the Government in the State. It is not unreasonable for one to assume that for oblique reasons the State machinery remained passive at that time. If police who witnessed the offence did not choose to register a F.I.R., then panic stricken victims taking two days time to regain their confidence about their safety and well- being to lodge F.I.R. cannot be found fault with. The political change took place only during June, 2024. As could be seen from the record it was much earlier to that itself crucial investigative endeavours took place. Several witnesses were examined. Various material objects, including crime weapons, were seized from the scene of offence. Several witnesses were 25 consulted and their statements were reduced into writing. New penal provisions were added based on their statements. All that took place much earlier to change of political party in the State. Therefore, change of political party by itself cannot be considered as a fact to suspect the genuineness of the prosecution case as presented now.
23. Another submission from the applicants is that while the facts on record indicate burning of a car, the newly brought allegation is under Section 436 I.P.C. which provides punishment with imprisonment for life. This is done by the investigation agency only to see that these applicants are prevented from securing relief. At the bar reliance is placed on the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Nigil's case (supra). That is a case where there was political party rivalry and certain articles in the office of one political party were burnt. It was in such circumstances, the question that arose was whether Section 436 I.P.C. would attract or not. Based on the facts on record, the learned Judge observed that the place where these articles were available and were burnt was not a residential building and therefore, Section 436 I.P.C. did not apply. Based on this ruling it is argued here that in the present case also it was 26 a political party office and not a residential building and hence, Section 436 I.P.C. does not apply.
24. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the record, two facts are to be noticed. One fact is that even in the F.I.R. itself the de facto complainant has mentioned that he has been not only working in the Telugu Desam Party office, but also, he has been living there. Thus, according to him and the prosecution it is a place where there has been continuous human dwelling. The other fact is that much before the change of the political guard the statements of witnesses which include people from Fire Department were recorded by police showing that it was not only the car that was burnt but also the culprit/Rabbani poured fuel on the walls of the office and lit fire to it. The scene observation reports made by the investigation agency show the walls were charred thus showing as to what had happened. These facts put together would prima facie attract Section 436 I.P.C. Therefore, the contention of the applicants has to be negatived.
25. One of the submissions on behalf of the applicants is that while the crime took place a long time ago, the arrest took place 27 only after a lapse of 17 months and that is because there is change of Government and it wanted to keep its political opponents in prison.
26. Having considered this submission, it must be recorded that the additional penal provisions were brought on record on 30.01.2024 which occurred much prior to the advent of the new Government. It is also to be noticed that the investigation did not run a smooth course as it proceeded for some time and stopped for some time. In the context of political rivalries that are argued and the fact that police force remained a mute spectator without even registering a crime soon after noticing the commission of cognizable offences there appear unholy interference with the investigative process. After the investigation once again commenced it went briskly. Further material in the form of CC TV footage etc., was taken into consideration by the investigation agency to notice the participants in the crime incident. In such circumstances, the delay in arrest of accused by itself cannot be said to be a ground to condemn the case of prosecution.
27. On verifying the entire material on record and the submissions on both sides, it is seen that while these petitioners 28 and many others participated in this vandalism where there occurred destruction of property of the political opponent, there is a clear graveness that is seen in the acts of Sri Shaik Rabbani, S/o. Sri Khasim/A.44. It is to be stated that the prosecution allegations supported by material collected by the investigation agency is that he is the one who burnt the car and burnt the premises. Such proclivity on his part does not make him eligible for bail at this stage of the case where investigation is still under progress. Considering the severity of the punishment provided for his acts and the gravity of the accusation made against him, his prayer for bail shall be declined. Coming to the other applicants in these petitions, it has to be mentioned that they have been in judicial custody for quite a good length of time and so far as they are concerned, the investigation is almost completed. Considering the length of detention and progress in investigation, there appears no further need to continue their detention for facilitating smoother investigation. What remained then is their presence at the trial as and when such a stage arises. Therefore, keeping them in confinement for any indefinite period does not appear necessary. Therefore, their prayers for regular bail have to be granted.
29
28. In the result, Criminal Petition No.5375 of 2024 is dismissed so far as petitioner No.7/A.44- Sri Shaik Rabbani, S/o. Khasim.
Criminal Petition Nos.5202, 5375 and 5468 of 2024 are allowed. Petitioners/A.5, A.9. A.10, A.12, A.26, A.33, A.38, A.41, A.48, A.57, A.58, A.59, A.60, A.66 and A.70 shall be enlarged on bail on each executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gannavaram, Krishna District. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for a period of four (4) months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall furnish their address proofs and mobile phone numbers. In the event of change of places of residences or mobile numbers, they shall immediately furnish their new addresses and new telephone numbers to the investigation agency. The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation by a police officer as and when required. They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the 30 facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. They shall not indulge in similar acts of crime.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 23.08.2024 Ivd 31 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5202, 5375 and 5468 of 2024 Date: 23.08.2024 Ivd