Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jonnala Veera Manikanta Manikanta vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 March, 2021
_ se A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1487 OF 2021 Between: 1. Jonnala Veera Manikanta @ Manikanta, S/o.Sri J.V.S.S.V.Prasad, Hindu, aged 26 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Akula Sunil Chakrapani @ Sunil, S/o.Sri A.Manikyala Rao, Hindu, aged 26 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh. _ 3. Palaniki Maruthi Sai @ Maruthi, S/o.Sri P.Tataji, Hindu, aged 23 years, Occ: Agricultural Labour, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District, _. Andhra Pradesh. 4. Nippuleti Sai Vamsi @ Vamsi, S/o.Sri N.Manikyala Rao, Hindu, aged 22 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. .Chinta Pavana Venkata Narasimha Rao @ Nareen, S/o.Sri Ch.Venkanna, Hindu, aged 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. Chinta Murali Naga Venkata Manikanta @ Manikanta S/o.Sri Ch.Venkanna, Hindu, aged 18 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G: District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. Vaddi Siva Krishna @ Siva, S/o.Sri V.Ramesh, Hindu, aged 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh. 8. Nippuleti Nagabhushanam @ Bhushanam, S/o.Sri N.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 28 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh. 9. Choudula Chandra Shekar @ Chandra Rao, S/o.Sri Ch.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Matsyapuri Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh. ..-Petitioners/A-1 to A-9 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Station House Officer, Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, W.G. District Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi . Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioners/A-1 to A-9 on bail in the event of their arrest in FIR No.41 /2021 Dt.26-02-2021 Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to file the documents mentioned in the Cri.P. as additional material papers in Cri.P.1487/2021 , pending disposal of CRLP 1487 of 2021, on the file of the High Court. 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 K Chidambaram, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1487 OF 2021 ORDER:-
This Criminal 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/A-1 to A-9 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.41 of 2021 of Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 436 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act-2016 (for short 'SC & ST (POA) Act'.
2. A report was lodged stating that on 25.02.2021 at about 9.00 PM, when the de facto complainant was at his house, they noticed procession organized by the village Janasena leader who was elected as sarpanch of the village. It is stated that the procession was stopped in front of their house and then all the accused belong to upper community abused them in the name of caste and further stated that they voted for YSRC Party and in the process of celebrations, they have thrown crackers on the hut resulting which, hut as well as the edge of saree of the complainant's wife caught fire. The neighbours came and rescued them. Basing on the said report, the present crime 41 of 2021 is registered on 26.02.2021 at 9.10 PM and the petitioners are arrayed as accused.
3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the accused herein are students and agriculturists who are youngsters and purely basing on the political reasons, this report was given. He submits that a complaint given by the 1*t petitioner herein was registered as FIR No.43 of 2021 at 9.30 PM. He submits that in the complaint it is clearly stated that on 25.02.2021, one Godi Sanni Babu, K.Dorababu, Godi Satheesh and Godi Raj Kumar came to their house and tried to attack him. Due to fear, he ran out of his house from backside. All of them damaged his car with iron rods, attacked his mother and the accused also damaged the windows and doors. He further submits that even the elected sarpanch belongs to SC-community and she has also given a complaint to Narsapuram Rural Police wherein there are specific allegations against Bhimavaram MLA who came to the place with 500 people, abused in the name of caste and when she tried to garland the statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, they pushed her stating that as she won on behalf of Janasena party, she does not belong to SC- community, as such, she has no right to garland the statue. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though she gave report to the police, they failed to register the same on political reasons, as such, she is taking steps to file a private complaint. He further submits that in the incident no injuries were sustained by the de facto complainant's wife and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are students and agriculturists, their case may be considered for pre arrest bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy on the other hand submits that the petition itself is not maintainable as the offences alleged in the report also includes the offences under the provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act where the petitioners abused in the name of caste and there is a common intention on behalf of the accused. He submits that in view of serious allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the allegations are under the SC & ST (POA) Act, in view of the bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.
6. Though, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act, there is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The averments in the report does not disclose the intension. The Hon'ble Apex Court Writ Petition (C) No.1015 of 2018 and Writ Petition (C) No.1016 of 2018 between Pruthvi Raj Chauhan and Union of India has considered the scope of Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act and observed that:
«concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., shall not apply to the Act. However, if the complainant does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act the bar created by Section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply."
--
kee nee It would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, High Court has to balance two interests i.e. the power is not so used to convert the jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and if such orders are not made in similar cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. Therefore, I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament."
7 Looking on the successive reports lodged by the petitioners, by the de facto complainant and by the sarpanch of the village, prima facie it appears that these are the case and counter cases basing on political rivalry and further as the de facto complainant has not sustained any injuries in this case, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners/A-1 to A-9 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.41 of 2021 of Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, West Godavari District on a condition of executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. They shall appear before the Station House Officer once in a month till charge sheet is filed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
eT --~
-
gq/-1.Madhavi GASTR 7, REGISTRAR imeuecopyy ASSIS" AN |
- gecTION OFFICER To, | EG Ce
--_ _ The Station House Officer, Narsapuram Rural Police Station, Narsapuram, West Godavari District.
One CC to Sri. K Chidambaram, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy.
"
DAWN HIGH COURT LK,J DATED:20/03/2021 ORDER CRLP.No.1487 of 2021 DIRECTION | he ' gir SE A. FED RE YO 2 Gok ff¢é 5 pwn oe, ;
. of 3 AN » ae a yp wh D ee 08"
"s. . a y SIN tes og fh ee ae a LESPAIS Ee"