Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Gurrala Mahaesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5115 of 2022
Decided On : 21-07-2022
CRIMINAL BAIL - PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 - SECTIONS 3 AND 4 - SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (POA) ACT, 1989 (AMENDMENT ACT, 2015) (01/2016) - SECTIONS 3 (2)(V), 3 (2)(VA) - BAIL GRANTED - CONDITIONS IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, accused of participating in a violent mob that attacked police personnel, damaged public property, and set fire to the house of a minister, seeks regular bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's name was not initially mentioned in the complaint but was added based on the confession statement of another accused. The court also noted that some accused in related cases had been granted bail.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering his involvement in the violent incident. 2. Whether the court can impose costs on the petitioner for the loss caused to the state.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's involvement in the incident was not yet fully established and that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kodungallu Film Society v. Union of India, which allows for conditional bail upon depositing the quantified loss caused due to violence, was not applicable in this case as there was no material to show that the petitioner had damaged any property. 2. The court also held that the petitioner should be granted bail on certain conditions, including executing a self-bond, appearing before the concerned Station House Officer twice a week, not contacting the complainant or witnesses, and providing his mobile phone number and residential address to the investigating officer.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal petition and granted bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal Procedure Code fCr.P.C.' in short), seeking regular bail, by the petitioner/Accused-65 in Crime No.126 of 2022 of Amalapuram Taluq Police Station, East District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 452, 436, 353, 332, 427, 183, and 307 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3 (2)(v), 3 (2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) (01/2016).
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are 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 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 police personnel; 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 watchman of the house of the Minister, Crime No.127 of 2022 was registered.
3. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that initially petitioner's name was not figured in the complaint. Basing on the confession statement of A1, his name was reflected and it is also contended that some of the accused in Crime Nos.138, 139, 140 and 141 of 2022, registered in connection with the same incident, were granted bail in Criminal Petition Nos.4881, 4882, 4883 and 4885 of 2022, respectively and sought to consider the present petition also in similar lines. It is also contended that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 30.05.2022 and requested to consider enlarging the petitioner on bail on any conditions that may be imposed.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the involvement of the petitioner 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 petition, in such case, he drew 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 : 2018 SCC Online SC 1719 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
In cases of violence resulting in loss of life or damage to property, bail may be granted upon depositing the quantified loss caused due to such violence or furnishing security for such quantified lo....
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.
In cases of large-scale violence, bail may be granted to accused persons who are not shown to have committed specific acts of violence or damage to property, especially if other accused have been gra....
In the absence of material evidence linking the petitioners to the damage of public property, the court cannot impose costs on them as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Kodungallu Film Society....
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....
Extra-judicial confessions made by accused persons before a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
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 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 accused persons before a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
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
