Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. Manyam Jagadish, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 September, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4548, 4537, 4583, 4628, 4710, 4796,
4808, 5294, 5297, 5303, 5329, 5349, 5351 and 5354 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since all the criminal petitions arise in the same crime and as they are heard together, they are now to be disposed of by this common order.
2. These Criminal Petitions, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), are filed by the petitioners/A.39, A.30, A.31, A.78, A.51, A.80, A.100, A.86, A.85, A.88, A.94, A.95, A.81, A.83, A.92 and A.93 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.650 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District. This case pertains to offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 506, 326, 307, 450 and 380 read with 109, 120B, 149 I.P.C.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsels, Sri Naidu Siva Rama Krishna, Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, Sri Varun Byreddy, Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Pittu, Sri Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy, Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, Sri 2 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch Deepak Mishra, Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, Sri Ravi Chinnapureddy, Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Sri B.Sesibhushan Rao and the learned senior counsels, Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, Sri P.Veera Reddy for petitioners. Heard arguments of Sri Sidharth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent-State and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-state as they were appointed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to argue the cases as per G.O.Rt.No.615, Home (Courts.A) Department, dated 12.07.2024. Heard arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
4. In every case of a crime, when the criminal justice machinery is put into motion, there emerge competing claims. State prays for the safety of its citizens and the citizens pray for their liberty from the inappropriate handling of investigation by the police officers. The rival contentions advanced in this bail application fall for assessment in the context of the following facts available from the record.
5. There are two prominent recognized political parties in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The crime incident in this case took place on 19.10.2021. By then, the Yuvajana Shramika Rythu 3 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch Congress party (for short "YSRCP") was in power. The scene of offence is Andhra Pradesh State's Telugu Desam Party (for short "TDP") central office situate along NH6 Highway road, Athmakuru Panchayat, Mangalagiri Mandal. TDP was in the opposition when this incident occurred on 19.10.2021. FIR No.650 of 2021 was registered on the date of incident/19.10.2021. On 19.10.2021 morning LW.27- Sri Kommareddy Pattabhi made some statements against the then Chief Minister of the State. On the occurrence of this incident, on 19.10.2021 at about 5:20 P.M. the YSRCP leaders and their followers attacked the TDP party office and the supporters and employees working in the office with deadly weapons and damaged the furniture, doors, glass panels, vehicles in the precincts of the office. There were about five injured. The statement of one of the injured persons was recorded at about 9.00 pm in Manipal Hospital. Acting upon that statement, FIR was registered at about 11.00 pm. The FIR was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 506 read with 149 IPC. Police embarked upon the investigation. They identified several accused. In terms of Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C., notices were issued on 20.10.2021 to 25.10.2021 to accused Nos.1 to 29 as the offences for which 4 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch the FIR was registered were punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years. It seems the statements of about eight witnesses were recorded during that phase of investigation. There was a lull in the investigation process. Years passed by. Democratic elections took place. The party in the opposition when this offence was committed won the mandate of the people and the party holding the power by the time of this offence is now in opposition.
6. Though the offence took place way back in the year 2021 and though about three years elapsed, the investigation did not conclude. Over a period, transfers took place for public servants and the same is with the police also. New investigating officer had taken charge of his police station. Law and call of duty ordain every public servant to complete the lawful work pending as well as the present. That sequence of natural events brought swiftness in the investigation of this crime. Thereafter, there is the next phase of investigation. In this phase, some more witnesses were examined. Electronic evidence was collected and the investigating officer on verifying the medical records and all other materials he collected had arrived at an opinion that the facts do 5 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch indicate to him the operation of sections 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109, 120B IPC. On 03.07.2023, he had filed a memo before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mangalagiri informing the court that the case has to be considered for these penal provisions also.
7. As per the case diary, there is one person by name Sri Kommareddy Pattabhi/LW.27. He made certain statements on 19.10.2021 against the then Chief Minister of the State. The record does not say what exactly were those statements. However, records indicate that the statements of the said individual were considered derogatory by the then ruling party leaders and followers. It is in that regard, the political cadre belonging to Guntur and Vijayawada joined together and hatched a plan and by virtue of that plan they wanted to eliminate the said individual Sri Kommareddy Pattabhi. It is then, the present crime incident occurred. As per the initial reports, about 70 persons belonging to YSRCP party came in cars and other vehicles to the spot of offence and they were holding iron rods, hammers, hockey sticks etc. They reached the TDP state office and forcibly pushed aside the security guard and forcibly entered the front 6 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch office and demolished the furniture. It is mentioned that several TDP workers were there in the building at that time. A media reporter was also said to be present there. This mob of people attacked and caused injuries to five people. Investigation also showed that the mob of people were hailing their leader and were shouting to kill Mr. Pattabhi. It is clear from the record that Mr. Pattabhi was not traced by them there. However, the mob did not relent, and they damaged several cars available within the precincts. There was theft of one mobile phone and a laptop.
8. The de facto complainant, who was one among the five injured, in his initial statement made to the police which became FIR mentioned that this mob of people beat him and others and he suffered bleeding injuries and they caught hold of his throat, pressed it hard and thereby suffocated him and with the weapons they hit on his nose and forehead which caused bleeding injuries to him. He fell Unconscious. He mentioned in his information that the mob intended to kill him and attempted to kill him. Everyone who came to rescue was beaten up. In the first phase of investigation, his injuries were stated to be simple in nature. Investigation record indicates the four other injured were treated 7 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch as out-patients. The de facto complainant was admitted in hospital and was treated as an in-patient. Case diary further shows that this de facto complaint who was beaten on his forehead and nose suffered Fracture Bony Nasal Septum which is stated to be grievous in nature and it is grievous hurt.
9. In the second phase of investigation the succeeding investigation officer reviewed the earlier investigation and included the scrutiny of CCTV footage, scrutiny of social media as available on the internet and elsewhere. What was seen therein was reduced into writing with reference to persons seen through them and timings at which such sighting was made and subsequently added 88 persons as accused in addition to the existing accused. Case diary produced in this case shows the presence of various petitioners at the scene of offence.
10. Record discloses that the investigation has been in progress. A.34, A.35, A.43 and A.56 were arrested and granted regular bail by this Court on 05.08.2024 in Crl.P.No.4895 of 2024. Some accused are yet to be arrested. Some accused are stated to be absconding.
8
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch In the bail petitions, the following points are urged • The contents of FIR are false, concocted, fabricated and invented only for the purpose of harassing these petitioners.
• New penal provisions were brought in only to satisfy the present ruling party.
• Only sympathizers of the TDP complained and there was no other complaint from anyone else.
• About an incident that took place in the year 2021 now at the intervention of busy bodies of TDP people mala fide accusations are made against the petitioners. • These false cases are filed only because the petitioners are sympathizers of YSRCP.
• There is a clear political Vendetta and only because of that the alteration memo was not filed in advance but was filed along with remand report.
• The CCTV footage was made available to the police even at the beginning itself.
11. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that between the first phase and the second phase of investigation there elapsed 9 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch 998 days. There are no specific overt acts against these petitioners. These petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The record does not indicate they are flight risk. That there is no material collected so far to indicate that they indulged in tampering with any evidence.
12. As against those submissions, the fervent arguments of the learned senior counsels for State are:
That in a democracy, recognized political parties owe a great deal of social responsibility. Crime incident is one that erupted without any provocation at the given point of time. On the purported ground of enragement because of some statements made by someone against their political leader, they did not take any legal action but they indulged in ransacking a party's office and caused havoc creating any amount of panic among the people in the society. Investigation is a voyage of truth. People involved in such heinous acts should be dealt with sternly as otherwise discipline does not descend on public. That as the investigation is progressing and as the material collected so far has been revealing involvement of many and more and as now the evidence has been forthcoming and there are criminal 10 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch antecedents, confessions of co-accused and depositions of witnesses against these petitioners and these accused are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. The past conduct of some of the prominent participants of this crime show their involvement in various crime as mentioned below:11
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch S. Criminal Petition Petitioner/Acc List of Confessio Criminal Antecedents of the accused No used witnesses n of co-
. identified accused 1 CRLP/4548/2024 Sri. Lella LWs 9 to15, A20, A26, (i) Cr. No. 81/2009 filed under Section Appireddy LWs 26 to A34, A35, 174A, 146, 147 Railways Act, R.P.F., 30, and A40, A43, Guntur (Pending Trial) (A30) LW40 A56, A64
(ii)Cr. No.74/2009 filed under Section174A, 146, 147 Railways Act, R.P.F., Guntur (Pending Trial)
(iii) Cr. No.06/2010 filed under Section174A, 146, 147 Railways Act, R.P.F., Guntur (Pending Trial)
(iv) Cr. No.08/2011 filed under Section174A, 146, 147 Railways Act, R.P.F., Guntur (Pending Trial)
(v) Cr. No.103/2012 filed under Section 143, 188, 341 I.P.C., Arundelapeta Police Station Guntur (Pending Trial) 2 CRLP/4537/2024 Sri. Gadela LW32, A40, A56, (i)Cr. No. 252/2015 filed under Section Ramesh LW33 A64 188, 341 I.P.C., of Nagarapalem Police Station, Guntur District.
(A39) (Disposed/Acquitted)
(ii) Cr. No.531/2018 filed under Section 143, 188, 341 I.P.C., of Arundelpeta Police Station, Guntur District.
(Closed/Without filing Charge Sheet) 12 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch 3 CRLP/4583/2024 Sri. Devineni LWs 9 to A20, A26, (i)Cr. No. 241/2010 filed under Section Avinash 15, LWs 26 A34, A35, 323, 324, 34, 342, 363, 506 I.P.C., of to 30 and A40, A43, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada. (A31) LW40 A56, A64 (Closed/Without filing Charge Sheet)
(ii)Cr. No. 570/2015 filed under Section 143, 188, 341 I.P.C., and Section 30 of AP Police Act of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada. (Under Investigation)
(iii)Cr. No.447/2017 filed under Section 143, 188, 290 I.P.C., of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada. (Under Investigation) (iv)Cr. No.93/2024 filed under Section 324 read with 34, 341, 506 I.P.C., of Kalyanadurg Police Station, Anthapuram District. (Pending Trial) 4 CRLP/4796/2024 Sri Nandigam LWs. 20 to A20, A26, (i) Cr. No. 93/2010 filed under Section Suresh Babu 30 and A35, A40, 156(3) Cr.P.C., 323, 34, 417, 420, 506, LW40 A43, A56 509 I.P.C., of Thulluru Police Station, (A80) Guntur District (Closed/Without filing Charge sheet)
(ii)Cr. No. 47/2012 filed under Section 498A, 506 I.P.C., of Thullur Police Station., Guntur District.(Acquitted)
(iii) Cr. No. 390/2020 filed under Section 147, 148, 302, 324, 109 I.P.C., read with 149 I.P.C., of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District. (Under Investigation) 13 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch 5 CRLP/4628/2024 Sri. Talasila LW26, LW A20, A26, Raghuram 27, LW29, A64 LW30, (A78) LW40 6 CRLP/4710/2024 Sri. Shaik LW30, A5, A26, Rabbani LW32, A34, A40, Bhasha LW33, LW A43, A56 42 andA64 (A51) 7 CRLP/4808/2024 Sri. LW30, A64 Chinnabattina LW42 Vinod Kumar (A100) 8 CRLP/5294/2024 Sri. LW31, Sangasetti LW40, Haribabu LW41 (A86) 9 CRLP/5297/2024 Sri. Bandaru LW31, Anjanelyulu LW40,LW4 1 (A85) 10 CRLP/5303/2024 Sri. Oggu LW31, Gavaskar LW40, LW41 (A88) 11 CRLP/5329/2024 Sri. Shaik LW31, Amitha@Amit LW40, hab LW41 (A94) Sri. Gellipogu Raju@ Isuka Raju (A95) 14 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch 12 CRLP/5349/2024 Sri. Nandepu LW31, Jagadeesh LW40, LW41 (A81) 13 CRLP/5351/2024 Sri. Avuthu LW31, Srinivasa LW40, Reddy LW41 (A83) 14 CRLP/5354/2024 Sri. Manyam LW31, Jagadish LW40, LW41 (A92) Sri. Maddali Venkata Subba Rao (A93)
13. Having bestowed requisite attention to the facts and the contentions and the principles and the material placed before me, the following aspects are to be stated:
In these proceedings, two political parties are involved and the incidents that occurred at the crime scene impel this court to preface a precept. With policies, aims and objects to pursue any association or body of individual citizens of India would call itself a political party. Everyone, including every political party, its members, supporters and sympathizers are not expected to indulge in any activity which may aggravate any existing 15 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension. Criticism of other parties or activities of their workers and leaders must not result in or lead to violence and breach of law. The right of every individual for peaceful and undisturbed life shall be respected, however much the political parties and their supporters may resent the political opinions or activities of the other political parties and their supporters. Discipline in life, obedience to law always demands everyone to hear and heed the reasonable advices of the police on duty. The political parties and their leaders and supporters shall exercise control to the maximum in moments of excitement.
14. Wise people said that political interference in police investigation is a pervasive issue that undermines integrity to the criminal justice system. Unholy interference can lead to selective enforcement of laws, coverups and shift of culprits, compromised impartiality, delayed or botched investigation, undermining of police morale and credibility.
15. The problem of crime and the problem of political violence are not the same. The law itself determines the range of circumstances to be taken into account.
16
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
16. Freedom and rights of citizens are precious and are broader in their amplitude. When once anyone is accused of an offence, there emerges the need for jealous protection of his rights and liberty. The system has to see to it that the investigation and trial are fair to the accused as well as to the immediate victim and also the collective mind, namely, the state. Human beings desires security and yet everywhere their lot in life is insecurity. Every organized large group always has leaders and supporters. Those persons with capacity to influence others through their words, actions and decisions and with their affective communication and with their decisiveness delegate tasks to their supporters and entrust them with different responsibilities and they are capable of managing the emotions of their supporters. Leading members take the initiative and have a strong network, connect people and foster relationships. In a violent mob, leaders may not always be obvious, and individuals can shift roles quickly.
17. The case depicts vociferous mob. The arguments advanced on both sides are strong, long and emphatic. Given the 17 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch nature of the case and the submissions on both sides, the following aspects are to be recorded:
It has to be necessarily mentioned here that the facts do not allow anyone to think that there was no outsider's interference with the statutory body called police in investigation of the cases. Therefore, the long lull in investigation by itself is not an appropriate measure to condemn the facts on record. It is known in general that there are instances of witnesses being intimidated and statutory bodies shirk in discharging their legal responsibilities. The change of political party at the helm of affairs, as stated by petitioners, is the cause of implication of these petitioners after a long lapse of time. If that is the case, on the same touch stone it can possibly be said that it was earlier to that change the investigation commenced and kept dormant without finalization. May be that the assailants being belonged to a particular political party, the investigation agency could not take courage to conclude its investigation.18
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
18. A change in the political Government took place in June, 2024. Earlier in the general elections, the party in power was YSRCP. The main opposition party by then was TDP. The crime incident took place on 19.10.2021. As the investigation progressed, a greater number of accused were identified. Then there was a hiatus. General elections took place. The party in opposition till then won the mandate of the people and came into power. Swiftness in investigation took place. Much more evidence was collected, and many more accused were added.
19. It is in the above context, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners by their learned counsels is that it is the change in the political incumbency that artificially aggravated the case and there is no genuineness in the prosecution version. When the prosecution version is not genuine, it is always advised that it is a good case for granting anticipatory bail.
20. The further submission on behalf of the petitioners is that there elapsed nearly three years between the date of offence and this present phase of investigation, and the investigation agency allegedly collected statements of various witnesses now and it is based on their statements, prosecution has been contending that 19 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch a grave case is made out against the petitioners. Such statements of witnesses which were recorded years after the alleged incident cannot carry any weight in the eyes of the Law.
21. For petitioners, the following rulings are cited:
1. Sudershan Kumar V. State of Himachal Pradesh1 That was a case where the accused were acquitted by the trail court and in appeal that was reversed, and they were convicted by the High Court. In their further appeal, their Lordships stated that the investigation agency recorded statements of witnesses under section 161 CrPC with a delay of 77 days and failed to offer any explanation for such an abnormal delay. That failure shook the credibility of the statements of those witnesses.
2. Jafarudheen V. State of Kerala 2 1 (2014) 15 SCC 666 2 (2022) 8 SCC 440 20 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch That was a case where convictions of accused were confirmed and acquittals of some of the accused were reversed by the High Court. When the matter was carried to their Lordships, on the facts available from the record, their Lordships heed that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in recording the statements of witnesses and added to that there was no credible explanation from the investigation officer about such delay. Their Lordships finally stated that such aspects of a case would raise doubt in the mind of the court. It is further stated that an inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution's case, however, the same depends upon the facts of each case.
3. Sumedh Singh Saini V. State of Punjab 3 That was a case where during the course of investigation additional penal provisions were brought on record and the original FIR was registered 29 years prior to the prayer for anticipatory bail and the facts disclosed non initiation of any further steps by the informant. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail was granted. It has to be mentioned here that at paragraph No.11, their Lordships also stated that many a time, delay may 3 (2021) 15 SCC 588 21 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch not be fatal to the criminal proceedings. However, it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, at the same time, a long delay like 29 years can certainly by a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Susanta Ghosh V. State of West Bengal 4 That was a case of a regular bail and the prominent aspect that fell for consideration was that the arrest took place about a crime incident of which FIR was registered 9 years after the crime incident. On facts it was found that during all those years there has been no allegation that the applicant has interfered with the investigation. At paragraph No.17, their Lordships stated that tampering with the evidence or the investigation was found no longer relevant since investigation was completed and charge sheet was already filed in that case.
5. Bhalchandra Namdeo Shinde V. State of Maharashtra 5 4 (2012) 2 SCC 680 5 2003 SCC Online Bom 300 22 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch In this case, citing the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was ruled that unjustified and unexplained long delay on part of the investigation officer in recording statements of material witnesses during investigation will render the evidence of such witnesses unreliable. Inordinate delay in interrogation of witnesses during investigation is a sufficient ground to exclude testimony in considering the involvement of the accused in crime. At paragraph No.25, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court recorded that normally in a case where the commission of the crime is alleged to have been seen by the witnesses who are easily available, a prudent investigator would come to the examination of such witnesses giving precedence over the evidence of other witnesses.
22. It is on the above principles, for petitioners, it is contended that while considering these anticipatory bai applications, this court may have to exclude that part of the evidence that was allegedly collected after the change in the Government.
23. As against that, the stout reply from the State through the learned senior counsels is that the earlier investigation was inept. During that phase all the available material was never scrutinized. 23
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch That in the present phase of investigation the case diary entries and the panchanamas made in evidence of what was seen from the electronic evidence did show the complicity of the petitioners. That an officer in the rank of DySP though being available at the scene of offence was in fact not trying to quell the mob but was seen obliging the criminals at the spot. It is further argued that some of the police officers since exhibited gross dereliction and reprehensible conduct by their perfunctory investigation and biased attitude diluted the investigation. They were subjected to disciplinary enquiry, and they were suspended. A copy of the said proceedings is also placed on record here. It is argued that the above circumstances and the material now collected and placed themselves would offer enough justification of the delayed collection of evidence and the rulings cited themselves laid down that on showing justifiable cause for the delated collection of evidence the material cannot be discounted. Therefore, at this stage of investigation, nothing more needs to be stated here on that aspect.
24. As the record that is made available indicates, one of the injured said that he was beaten by hammers and other articles on 24 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch his forehead and on his nose and he suffered bleeding injuries. The medical record now placed indicates his nose was broken. The de facto complainant stated that his throat was pressed so hard, and he suffered suffocation and in his assessment, the assailants wanted to kill him. His assessment cannot be said to be incorrect as his statement indicates and his further treatment disclosed that he fell unconscious at the spot of offence. Therefore, the act of the investigation officer in adding some more relevant provisions of law under sections 326 and 307 IPC cannot be said to be unjustified. When these facts were available in the FIR itself, the failure to incorporate appropriate penal provisions in the FIR can be viewed only as an inefficient way of handling crimes by the then investigating police. Failure at one stage can certainly be rectified at a different stage. An investigating officer, finding from facts, came to an opinion that certain more penal provisions are available for investigation, and adding certain more accused who played role and participated in this crime is acting within the scope of law. By filing alteration memo, what was altered was the application of some more penal provisions to some of the existing penal provisions. All that depends on what is gathered during the investigation. Therefore, the objection taken 25 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch by the learned counsel for petitioners that an alteration memo should precede the arrest of these petitioners is one that has to be rejected as such contention has no legal basis.
25. Learned counsels for petitioners submit that Liberty is precious and every accused shall be presumed to be innocent until guilt is proved and therefore their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jalaluddin Khan V. Union of India6 were pleased to reiterate the cherished principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception.
While considering the above principle of law it cannot be contradicted that every case must be judged on its own facts and the circumstances surrounding those facts. As a matter of abstract principle of law, one must notice the principles stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Srikanth Upadhyay V. State of Bihar7. At paragraph No. 24, their Lordships held that ".....the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases, it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory 6 2024 INSC 604 7 2024 INSC 202 26 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch bail is the rule". Therefore, these petitions must be considered on their own merits.
26. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that in this 3-year- old crime, best part of the investigation was over and the nature of the case does not require any custodial interrogation of any of the petitioners and it is not the case of the prosecution that they are flight risk or they tamper with the witnesses. They further submit their apprehension of torture by police. On such submissions learned counsels pray for granting the relief.
As against the above, learned senior counsels for respondent/State cited State Represented by the CBI V. Anil Sharma8. That was a case where influential people were involved in the crime. The prayer therein was also for an anticipatory bail. Their Lordships held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under section 438 of the CrPC. Effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and materials which would have been concealed. Success in 8 (1997) 7 SCC 187 27 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch such interrogation would elude if the accused person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would be reduced to a mere ritual. The argument that custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court must presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. Their Lordships further held that the consideration which would weigh in the court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest.
27. On considering the above rival contentions and the principles of law, it has to be stated that the requirement of the State as spelt out in the counters filed indicate that the petitioners and their accomplices indulged in terrorizing their opponent political parties and subverted the democratic process and there 28 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch was larger conspiracy and to unearth the same there is the investigative need of interrogation. Looking at the facts of the case, such opinion of the prosecution agency cannot be denounced as not based on any genuine need. The case at hand is one where none of the victims had any dispute with any of these petitioners. However, these petitioners and others had gone to their opponent's political party's office and destroyed the furniture, cars and damaged the human bodies. Thus, without there being any personal cause between the accused and the immediate victims, the crime incident occurred. In such circumstances, one cannot say that there was unwarranted assertion for custodial interrogation.
28. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that names of many of these petitioners are considered by the prosecution only based on the alleged confessions of co-accused. Learned counsels submit that confessions of accused and confessions of co- accused are inadmissible in evidence. Excluding that evidence, there remained nothing against these petitioners and therefore they shall be granted anticipatory bail. In this regard reliance is 29 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch placed on Smt. Selvi V. State of Karnataka9. Their Lordships held that the scheme created by CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act mandate that confessions made before police officers are ordinarily not admissible as evidence and it is only the statements made in the presence of Judicial Magistrate which can be given weightage. The protective scope of article 20(3) of the constitution of India extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases and when read with sections 161(2) CrPC, it protects accused persons, suspects as well as witnesses who are examined during investigation.
29. One must bear in mind that their Lordships in that celebrated judgement were considering the aspect of compulsory administration of scientific techniques against the suspects for gathering information.
30. That confession of accused is inadmissible to find him guilty is the rule that is not in controversy. The facts from the record do indicate that there was investigation. That in every investigation, the investigation agency records the statements of witnesses, suspects and accused. Any incriminating statements 9 AIR 2010 SC 1974 30 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch made by accused would amount to confession and such confessions made to police do not get admission for consideration before a court. However, the statements made by accused to police during investigation would furnish information that enables the police to pursue the origins of crime and all those who had role in the commission of the crime. The present case is only a case for consideration of anticipatory bail and it shall not be confused with that of a trial on a charge. That the contention of the State to look at a person and consider him as accused may be arrived at based on the statements gathered from the other accused. Such investigative process is common and no rule is shown prohibiting an investigation agency to proceed further with its investigative efforts in that manner. In the case at hand, detailed statements of various witnesses placed on record show the involvement and participation of these petitioners in different ways at the scene of offence and around it. Therefore, it is not a case where all that is available against the petitioners is only confessions of co-accused and nothing more. 31
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
31. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there are no specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners and therefore they deserve anticipatory bail.
There is no force in this submission. Their very presence at the scene of offence itself is an overt act since the offence that took place is one where a mob of people attacked the opponent political party's office and damaged everything available there and they were shouting for blood and caused serious injuries to one and injuries to others. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were mere bystanders. All the petitioners swore that they belonged to the then ruling party. Admittedly the scene of offence is opponent political party's office. Their presence was not there for peace and as the exhibited conduct of the mob indicated it was for destruction. Their target Mr. Pattabhi was not seen and if the mob which arrived at had no other ideas except to catch hold that person they should have left the place peacefully, once they could not trace him. That was not the case. Despite the fact that they did not trace that man, they went on to create havoc. A case of such nature and such magnitude cannot be equated with a case of one or few as against another one or few. 32
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
32. Learned senior counsel for respondent/State submit that Sri Devineni Avinash in Crlp.No.4583 of 2024 was granted interim protection. However, misusing it, without intimation to the police or to this court he attempted to leave the country for Abu Dhabi and was intercepted at the Airport. This submission is made to show that he is a flight risk. In response to it, an affidavit and additional material papers were filed on his behalf explaining that he never intended to flout the law and he and his family members intended to attend celebrations of birthday of his mother and sister and rest of the family went and participated in the celebrations and returned back and even he had his return tickets also and that it was out of lack of knowledge, he did not inform either to the court or to the police
33. The above submissions and response are merely recorded and in the opinion of this court at this stage of proceedings no observations need be recorded in that regard. 33
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
34. Learned counsels for petitioners place reliance on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab10 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra 11.
These celebrated and monumental rulings guide the courts in this country as they laid down the principles that are to be considered in anticipatory bail prayers.
Learned counsels bring to the attention of this court to the aspect that in these rulings their Lordships cautioned the courts to consider that there are occasions where influential people are tried to be implicated by their rivals in false cases with a view to bring disgrace to them by getting them detained in jail and the legislative wisdom in pre arrest bails is a measure to counter such tactics. Their Lordships also mentioned that arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10
1980 2 SCC 565 11 2011 1 SCC 694.
34
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
35. The importance of the above rulings is not in challenge from the State in this case. However, the point to be noticed in this case is that it is an open case where inappropriate statements of one person from one party seems to have enraged the men belonged to the other political party. The feelings of hurt were to find redress through appropriate legal process. That was not done. What they did was to attack the opponent political party's office and destroy and damage everything there. Therefore, it is not a case where one is trying to falsely implicate the political opponents.
In those celebrated rulings as well as in Arigela Venkata Rama Rao V. State of AP 12, it was held that while considering anticipatory bail two factors are to be considered. The impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. The other aspect to be noticed is the cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC, 1860, the court should consider with greater care and caution because over implication in such cases is a matter of concern. Having applied these 12 2022 SCC Online AP 1532 35 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch principles to the facts at hand when this court has evaluated the entries in case diaries it is seen that specific allegations are seen against these petitioners. One has to keep in mind that merely because some members of the large mob entered into the building part and some members remained outside the building part and only some members destroyed the cars, and some members damaged the furniture and some members beat the persons black and blue while other members were merely there does not mean that there are no overt acts against those other members. The unity in the mob and the leaders of the mob, their united effort in organizing the incident of crime indicate that they were part of the havoc that was successfully carried out. Be it noted, the case on record is not one where people who were not seen either through the eyes of witnesses or through the eyes of cameras are involved.
In Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ruled that at the stage of considering a bail plea detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be 13 (2012) 1 SCC 40 36 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch under taken. Courts shall ensure that there is no pre judging of the case. There shall be only a brief examination of the aspects involved in the case. At the bail hearing what is to be seen is as to whether there is prima facie case or not. If prima facie case is available then the question that falls for consideration is whether there is likelihood of subversion of justice if the accused are granted relief. The facts on record would show in the case at hand that even police personnel who were available at the scene of offence were seen toeing the line of the perpetrators of crime. The long hiatus in the investigation is indicative of some sort of external influence on the investigation agency. Tampering with witness itself is a ground for refusal of bail, tampering with the system of justice must be considered as a greater cause to refuse bail in advance.
Therefore, this is not a fit case for granting prayer for anticipatory bail.
36. In the result, all the criminal petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
37
Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch After pronouncing the orders, the learned counsels appearing for petitioners prayed this court to grant interim protection against coercive steps for a period of two or three weeks so as to enable the petitioners to seek their remedies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this regard, learned counsels submitted that this court grant such relief and cited State of Chattisgarh V. Aman kumar Singh (2023) 6 SCC 559 and Gautam P Navlakha V. The State of Maharashtra 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2022.
Learned senior counsels appearing for respondent/State opposed the prayer and submit that after pronouncing the order no further orders could be or need be passed and on dismissal of anticipatory bail petitions no further protection can be granted and cited State of Telangana V. Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited V. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401.
The rulings cited pertain to cases where interim protections were sought after dismissal of quash petitions. The submissions made on both sides find their answer in State of Uttar Pradesh V. Mohd.Afzal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566. Their Lordships of the 38 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that on dismissal of anticipatory bail petitions orders of interim protection cannot be granted since such orders stand contradictory to the order of refusal of anticipatory bail.
In view of the law as referred above, the request made by the learned counsels for petitioners is declined.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 04.09.2024 Ivd/Dvs 39 Dr.VRKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 4548, 4537, 4583, 4628, 4710, 4796, 4808, 5294, 5297, 5303, 5329, 5349, 5351 and 5354 of 2024 Date: 04.09.2024 Ivd/Dvs