Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Arigela Venkata Rama Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 3981, 3982, 3983, 3984 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438, 144, 39 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 436, 435, 188, 120(B), 353, 201 and 109 read with 149 - PDPP Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Police Act, 1861 – Section 32 - Rioting – Criminal Conspiracy - Unlawful assembly - Punishment for rioting - Attempt to murder - Whether confession of co-accused can be considered, he placed reliance on order, wherein this Court observed that confession statements can be considered for the purpose of investigation - Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (Para 38).
Findings of Court : Petitioner in above criminal petitions, according to learned counsel for petitioner, is leader and actively participated in politics and in view of same he was falsely implicated - According to prosecution, petitioner, being leader, after incident directed persons/followers participated in agitation to delete whatsapp messages - Thus, keeping guidelines issued by Apex Court, since the petitioner's involvement in the above cases has been stated in complaint as well as by list of witnesses, petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail, custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary - Public Prosecutor specifically urged that petitioner's custody is important in this case, since according to prosecution, he is instrumental in sending messages through whatsapp and other social media platform resulted in occurrence of violence - In event of petitioner granted pre-arrest bail, petitioner will not co-operate with the investigating agency and in fact petitioner's presence for custodial interrogation is necessary - Prosecution needs petitioner's presence for free and fair investigation - Since name of petitioner reflected in complaint as well as statements of list of witnesses recorded under Sec 161 Cr.P.C. this Court is of view petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Result : Criminal petitioners dismissed.
ORDER :
1. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime Nos. 141, 138, 139 and 140 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as A37, A45, A16 and A45 respectively in the above crimes.
3. Crime No.141 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 436, 435, 188, 120(B), 353, 201 and 109 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 32 of Police Act.
4. Crime No.138 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(b) 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 506 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act.
5. Crime No.139 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324, 435, 120(B), 109, 201 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act.
6. Crime No.140 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B), 341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 336, 435, 188, 506 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act, 1861.
7. The above crimes were registered basing on the reports lodged by Ponnada Venkata Narayana Kumar cousin of Ponnada Venkata Satish, MLA of Mummidhivaram; Subrahmanyam Vasamsetti, Home Guard-268; Koppisetti Venkata Ganesh, VRO: Naga Venkata Ratna Giri Babu, Driver of RTC Bus, respectively, with regard to the incident that took place on 24.05.2022 pursuant to the notification issued by the Government by changing the name of Konaseema District as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District.
8. The facts of above crimes are inter-linked. Therefore, they are considered and decided by this common order.
The facts of the case in brief are:
9. On 24.05.2022 at about 4:00 P.M. on a call given by JAC of Konaseema Sadhana Committee, huge number of people gathered together for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema , by violating the proceedings issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the Police Act. The mob started rally at Kalasam Centre, Amalapuram Town and proceeded to Clock Tower Centre and in the meanwhile various groups of public came from four corners to the clock tower centre and formed into a huge mob.
10. Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate office and on the way to Collectorate office when the Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and burnt BVC collage bus which was used as transport vehicle for the Police.
11. Further when Police tried to control the mob at Collectorate office, the mob pelted stones on Police personnel due to which some of the Police sustained injuries and the mob damaged the glasses of Collectorate Office and Ambedkar Bhavan.
12. Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthena), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses.
13. The mob further moved towards the house of MLA and pelted stones on the house due to which glasses were damaged. When cousin of MLA tried to pacify the matter and while he was taking video of the situation, the mob poured petrol on him, but he managed to escape. Then the mob entered into the house of MLA, set fire to the motorcycles and entire furniture in the house including house.
14. The petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused in the above crimes basing on the complaints lodged by respective persons referred to supra.
15. The respondent-State filed counter stating that petitioner being the leader gathered his followers prior to the commission of offence, hatched a plan and provoked the mob to take aggressive steps in the rally. It is stated that the petitioner monitored the entire mob through whatsapp messages in conducting the rally and pr
Point of Law : Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
Anticipatory Bail – While considering prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, balance has to be struck between two factors; no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation and there....
Confessional statements made by accused persons before a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
The absence of specific overt acts against a petitioner amidst a large assembly precludes refusal of anticipatory bail under relevant IPC provisions.
Confessional statements made by an accused person to a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
Pre-arrest bail can be granted where allegations are not supported by evidence on record.
In order to establish the offenses of unlawful assembly, rioting, and attempt to murder, the prosecution must prove that there was a common intention among the protestors to commit the offenses.
In cases of unlawful assembly and rioting, the prosecution must establish that the accused had a common intention of committing an offence.
Confessional statements made by an accused person to a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
The court holds that in order to establish an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC, there must be a common intention among the members of the assembly to commit an offense. The court also h....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
