Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sandhyapogu Devanna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 June, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4026 OF 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner herein, who is sole Accused in Crime No.55 of 2022 of Kosigi Police Station, Kurnool District, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the Tahsildar of Kosigi Mandal made a complaint stating that the accused made an application to furnish the particulars in respect of Ac.33.78 cents in Survey Nos.454/1, 454/2 and 479/A of Pathanuru Kottala Village, Kosigi Mandal. He also made an application under the Right to Information Act, through his Advocate D. Nagendra. Accordingly, information was furnished to him as per the provisions of the Act. Notwithstanding the information furnished, the accused came to office of the Tahsildar and abused the staff and the Tahsildar and threatened that he would file a case against the Tahsildar under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act and also interdicted discharge of their duties and hence, the Tahsildar lodged a complaint and the said complaint was registered as Crime No.55 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 384 and 389 of IPC.
3. Heard Sri Y. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even before the complaint was lodged by the Tahsildar, the petitioner made a complaint against the Tahsildar on 28.03.2022 with the Police. He 2 also would contend that since the petitioner has made a complaint against the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar filed false complaint against the petitioner. He also would contend that Section 353 and 384 IPC are bailable offences and Section 389 IPC only is non-bailable offence. He also contends that on a perusal of the complaint no ingredients that attracts Section 389 IPC are attributed against the petitioner and hence, he seeks for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner obstructed the Tahsildar from discharging his duties and also threatened the officers and therefore, the Tahsildar filed complaint. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.
6. A perusal of the complaint would indicate that the Tahsildar lodged complaint against the petitioner stating that though the petitioner's request to furnish information sought for was considered and information was furnished, the petitioner abused and also threatened that he would implicate the complainant in the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) case. To consider whether the ingredients of Section 389 of IPC are present or not, it is pertinent to extract Section 389 IPC. Section 389 IPC reads as follows:
"Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with imprisonment for life."3
A perusal of the complaint shows that the accusations made therein does not attract any of the ingredients of Section 389 IPC i.e. extortion or attempt to commit extortion and would only attract the offences under Sections 353 and 384 IPC, which are punishable by three years and two years imprisonment, respectively.
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner lodged complaint against the complainant/Tahsildar on 28.03.2022 i.e. two months prior to the present complaint of the Tahsildar and since the accusation against the petitioner does not attract Section 389 of IPC, this Court feels that it is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 55 of 2022 of Kosigi Police Station, Kurnool District, on the condition of executing self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Kosigi Police Station, Kurnool District.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
9. It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the finding in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the anticipatory bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 4 21st June, 2022 GBS