Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 1057

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Arigela Venkata Ramarao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 6942 and 6969 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mulakala Lakshmigeet, Advocate, for the Appellant; Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents

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 holds that in order to establish an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC, there must be a specific intent to kill and an act that is sufficiently proximate to the intended result.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PETITION - PRE-ARREST BAIL - SECTION 438 CR.P.C. - KONASEEMA AGITATION - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, READ WITH 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO THE PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT AND SECTION 32 OF THE POLICE ACT - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND COURT'S FINDINGS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a news reporter, seeks pre-arrest bail in two criminal cases related to the Konaseema agitation. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner participated in a mob that pelted stones at police, damaged public property, and set fire to buses during a protest against the renaming of Konaseema District.
Finding of the Court:

The court finds that there is no specific evidence attributing any overt acts of violence to the petitioner. The court also notes that the petitioner was not armed with any weapons and that the mob gathered for the purpose of submitting representations, not with the intention of committing violence.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner can be granted pre-arrest bail in the present cases. 2. Whether the petitioner's participation in the mob constituted an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC. 3. Whether the petitioner's actions amounted to an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applies the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra to determine whether to grant bail. The court considers the nature and gravity of the accusations, the petitioner's antecedents, the possibility of flight or repetition of offenses, and the impact of granting bail. 2. The court finds that the prosecution has not established that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly or that he had a common intention to commit violence. The court also finds that the petitioner's actions did not amount to an attempt to murder. 3. The court concludes that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, subject to certain conditions.
Final Decision: The court grants the petitioner pre-arrest bail on the condition that he execute a self-bond of Rs. 50,000 for each crime, appear before the Station House Officer once a week, cooperate with the investigation, and not contact the complainant or any witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), by the petitioner/accused seeking pre-arrest bail in the following crimes.

2. Crime No. 138 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act and Section 32 of the Police Act and the petitioner herein was arrayed as A-45.

3. Crime No. 140 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 336, 435, 188 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act and Section 32 of the Police Act and the petitioner herein was arrayed A-45.

4. Since the petitioner in these criminal petitions is one and the same and the above crimes were registered in relation to Konaseema agitation, they are being disposed of by this common order.

5. The above crimes were registered basing on the reports lodged by Home Guard and driver of the RTC bus 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.

6. The case of the prosecution in brief is that 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 District 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.

7. Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to Collectorate 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.

8. Further when Police tried to control the mob at collectorate, the mob pelted stones on Police personnel due to which some of the Police sustained injuries, damaged the glasses of Collectorate Office and Ambedkar Bhavan.

9. Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthena), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses.

10. The mob further moved towards the house of MLA and pelted stoned on the house due to which glasses were damage. 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.

11. Heard Ms. Mulakala lakshmi Geet, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contended that the petitioner is a news reporter in Greater News Telugu daily and he did not commit any offence and he is falsely implicated in these cases. Earlier, the petitioner got filed Criminal Petition Nos. 3982 and 3984 of 2022 for grant of pre arrest bail and they were dismissed by this Court on 04.07.2022. There are changed circumstances and substantial part of the investigation is completed and most of the co-accused in the present crimes and other crimes registered in connection with the same incident were granted regular bails and pre-arrest bails and sought to consider the present petitions.

13. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that the petitioner is identified as one of the participants as per data collecte