Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gandluru Veera Praveen Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 November, 2022
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.8617 of 2022
Order:
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C.,
has been filed by the petitioners/A1, A6 and A8 to A11, seeking
regular bail, in Crime No.294 of 2022 of Proddatur III Town Police
Station, YSR Kadapa district.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein and
others for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324,
307, 386, 509 read with 149 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.10.2022, at
about 3.45 PM, at Satyanarayana Swamy temple street, YMR colony,
Proddatur town, accused Nos.1 to 11 formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly armed with sticks and stones and attacked the de
facto complainant and his uncle and caused severe bleeding injury
over the head of the uncle of the de facto complainant with an
intention to kill him.
4. Heard. Perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case
and counter case. The injury received by the victim is laceration over
the occipital region and it is simple in nature. The petitioners were
arrested on 14.10.2022 and since then they are in judicial custody.
2
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that the petitioners are not entitled for bail at this stage
for the reason that the victim received suspicious traumatic brain
injury and he is facing giddiness and repeated vomiting. The victim
was referred to better hospital for treatment by a Neuro Surgeon. He
further contended that there is a law and order problem in the village
and if the petitioners are released the situation in the village would
deteriorate. He relied upon the decisions reported in Indresh
Kumar v. the State of Uttar Pradesh1, and Harjit Singh v.
Inderpreet Singh @ Inder2.
7. In Indresh Kumar's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed thus.
"The High Court has ignored the materials on
record including incriminating statements of witnesses
under Section 164/161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may
not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in
considering the prima facie case against an accused in
an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence.
.................
If the High Court had seriously considered the gravity of the offence, there would have been some indication of what was the apparently extenuating circumstance, which entitled the respondent-accused to 1 2022 Live Law (SC) 610 2 2021 SCC Online SC 633 3 bail. Ex facie, the allegations are grave, the punishment is severe and it cannot be said that there are no materials on record at all."
8. In Harjit Singh's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows.
"27. In the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, this Court in paragraphs 17 to 19 observed and held as under:
"17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a 4 society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated and such regulations which are the source in law subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for protection of human rights and security of the collective. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, "it is regulated freedom".
18. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing J. Oerter stated:
"Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law."5
19. Thus analysed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti- collective act."
9. A perusal of the above said judgment goes to show that liberty of the petitioners is necessary, but at the same time the liberty of individual is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law.
10. The petitioners were arrested on 14.10.2022 and since then they are in jail. A perusal of the medical certificate goes to show that initially a laceration was found on the occipital region. Apart from it, there are no other injuries stated by the Doctor. A mob attacked the victim. It goes without saying that he should have received number of injuries, but going by the medical certificate, there is only one injury on the occipital region. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has relied upon 161 Cr.P.C. statement and stated that though the same is not admissible in evidence, but is relevant in considering the prima facie case against the accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence. He read out 161 Cr.P.C statement in the open Court. Even going by the 161 6 Cr.P.C. statement, certain accusations have been made as against the petitioners. Going by the medical certificate, the injury received by the victim is only a laceration.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A1, A6 and A8 to A11.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners/A1, A6 and A8 to A11 shall be released on bail on their executing personal bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa district. The petitioners shall not enter into their village for a period of one month. The petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer at the place where they are staying twice a week i.e., on every Wednesday and Sunday, between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM till filing of the charge sheet.
_____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Dated:11.11.2022 Note:
Issue CC today (B/O) Nsr 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8617 of 2022 Dated:11.11.2022 Nsr