IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao Anantha Babu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6907 of 2022
Decided On : 12-10-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 174, 437, 439, 482 – SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) – Criminal Petition – First Information Report – Judicial custody – Offence of murder – Police to enquire and report on suicide – Case of prosecution, in brief, is that, deceased worked as a driver of accused for about six (06) years and at time of his marriage, deceased borrowed an amount accused and repaid leaving a balance amount and about three months back deceased discontinued to work at accused – Held, Petitioner has been in judicial custody – Though liberty of individual is an invaluable right, but at same time while considering application for bail, Courts cannot lose sight of serious nature of accusations against an accused and potential threat to life and liberty of victim/witnesses – In view of post crime conduct of petitioner as well as his relatives in threatening witnesses, as could be perceived from order of Special Sessions Judge, there is potential threat to life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if petitioner is released on bail – Judgments relied on by both senior counsel are no doubt settled principles of law – Offence alleged in this case is heinous – Court finds force in contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 2/victim that there is threat to life and liberty of witnesses – Apart from these, according to prosecution, investigating agency is thriving hard to find out involvement of other accused in this crime – Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage – Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking bail, by the petitioner/sole accused in Cr. No. 195 of 2022 of Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada, initially registered under Section 174 CrPC, later altered to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the deceased worked as a driver of the accused for about six (06) years and at the time of his marriage, the deceased borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the accused and repaid Rs. 30,000/- leaving a balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- and about three months back the deceased discontinued to work at the accused. Since then, the accused was pressurizing the deceased for repayment of balance amount and on the night of 19.05.2022, the accused contacted the father of the deceased over phone and warned the deceased severely to see his end, if the amount is not paid. Later, when the deceased was consuming liquor with his friends at Nava Bharat school, Kakinada, the petitioner/accused rushed there by car, took the deceased with him to somewhere and later the petitioner/accused contacted the father of the deceased at 00.52 a.m. and informed that the deceased received injuries due to road accident at Nagamallithota junction. The younger brother of the deceased enquired and confirmed that no accident took place at Nagamallithota junction. Meanwhile, the petitioner/accused contacted the brother of the deceased and informed that he was taking the deceased to Amrutha Hospital at Janma Bhoomi Park, Kakinada and immediately the brother of the deceased along with some others rushed to Amrutha Hospital and noticed the deceased in the car and duty doctor examined and declared the deceased as dead and later the accused took the dead body of the deceased to Sri Rama Bageechi Enclave Apartment and informed that the deceased died due to injuries received by him in a bike accident and directed the parents of the deceased to cremate the dead body by taking to their native place and offered an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- when they questioned him, the petitioner/accused abused them on their caste and threatened them with dire consequences and went away leaving the dead body of the deceased in his car. The report of mother of the deceased was registered as Cr. No. 195 of 2022 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (suspicious death). Later inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and as per the opinion of panchayatdars, the section of law was altered to 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016 (for short ‘the Act’).
3. Smt. Veedi Nooka Ratnam, mother of the deceased, got filed I.A. No. 3 of 2022 under section 15A of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to implead her as respondent No. 2 to this Criminal Petition. The same was allowed and she was permitted to come on record as the respondent No. 2.
4. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, for Ms. P. Anitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent state and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, for Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/vicim.
5. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, in elaboration, would submit that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence and except the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner/accused said to have been recorded by the police during his custodial interrogation, which is inadmissible in evidence, no other material is available on record to connect the accused with this crime. The confess
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh
Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974
Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan
Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527
Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 : (2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 647
Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra
Sunil Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another
Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand
State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi
Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail depends on various factors, including the nature of the offence, the presumption of innocence, and the need for a humane att....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the ....
The gravity and seriousness of the offence are crucial factors in deciding bail applications.
The court emphasized that the severity of the crime and potential interference with the investigation justify the denial of bail, aligning individual liberty with societal safety.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with justice.
Bail denied in murder case due to criminal antecedents including proclaimed offender status and conviction, eyewitness assault evidence, blood findings, offence gravity, and absconding risk; arrest g....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.