Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Dangeti Eswara Rao & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6316 of 2022
Decided On : 24-08-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - PRE-ARREST BAIL - SECTIONS 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324, 435 R/W. 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 AND SECTION 32 OF POLICE ACT, 1861 - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - RIOTING - ATTEMPT TO MURDER - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS - ADMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF PRE-ARREST BAIL.
Fact of the Case:
A mob gathered to protest the change of name of Konaseema District, pelted stones at police, damaged property, and set fire to buses. The petitioners were accused of participating in the riot based on confession statements of other accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' names were not mentioned in the initial complaint, and that there was no evidence of a common intention to commit an offense punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The court also found that the confessional statements of other accused were inadmissible as evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly and participated in rioting. 2. Whether the petitioners had the common intention to commit an offense punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 3. Whether the confessional statements of other accused were admissible as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no evidence to show that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly or that they participated in rioting. 2. The court held that there was no evidence to show that the petitioners had the common intention to commit an offense punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 3. The court held that the confessional statements of other accused were inadmissible as evidence.
Final Decision: The court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners on the condition that they execute self bonds for Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties each for a like sum, appear before the Station House Officer once a week, and not contact the complainant or any other witnesses.
JUDGMENT
Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 438 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the petitioners/Accused in the Crime No. 139 of 2022 dated 24.05.2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 232 & 249 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324, 435 r/w. 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.05.2022 on a call given by JAC of Konaseema Sadhana Committee, huge number of people gathered for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema District, by violating the order 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.
Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to Collectorate, when Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and also burnt BVC college bus which was used as transport vehicle for Police.
Further, when the 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.
Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthenna), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses.
The mob further moved towards the house of Hon'ble Minister. When the mob shouted and beat police persons, AR constable fired rounds in air, but agitators attacked complainant and his staff; attacked staff of the Hon'ble Minister, caused damage to the furniture and set fire to the house of the Minister and later proceeded to the house of local MLA. Basing on the complaint lodged by the Village Revenue Officer of the 30th Ward, Amalapuram town crime No. 139 of 2022 was registered.
3. Heard Sri. Ch.S.V. Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that initially the petitioners names were not figured in the complaint. Basing on the confession statements of the other accused, their names were arrayed as accused in this crime. It is also contended that the petitioners were shown as Accused No. 232 and 249 in the present case and were granted anticipatory bail in other crimes which are registered in connection with the same incident and sought to consider the present petition also on similar lines.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the involvement of the petitioners is evident from the photographs taken at the scene of offence and investigation is still pending. If at all this Court wants to consider the present bail petitions, in such case, he draw the attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kodungallu Film Society v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 713 wherein it is held as follows:
C. Liability of person causing violence
a) .......
b) .......
c) A person arrested for either committing or initiating, promoting, instigating or in any way causing to occur any act of violence which results in loss of life or damage to property may be granted conditional bail upon depositing the quantified loss caused due to such violence or furnishing security for such quantified loss. .....'
Relying on the judgment cited supra, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, prayed this Court to impose some costs for the loss caused to the State.
6. Learned Special A
The absence of specific overt acts against a petitioner amidst a large assembly precludes refusal of anticipatory bail under relevant IPC provisions.
In cases of unlawful assembly and rioting, the prosecution must establish that the accused had a common intention of committing an offence.
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....
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.
Pre-arrest bail can be granted where allegations are not supported by evidence on record.
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.
Point of Law : Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
Confessional statements made by an accused person to a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
An accused person may be granted bail even if their name was not initially mentioned in the complaint, especially if similar bail applications have been allowed in related cases.
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
