Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 948

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Desamsetti Siva Madhu Kalyan – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 4163 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Banda Venkata Subramanyeswara Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant; Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents

Extra-judicial confessions made by accused persons before a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL BAIL - SECTION 437 AND 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - [SECTION 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 452, 436, 353, 332, 427, 188, 307 R/W 3, & 4 OF PDPPA, SECTION 32 OF PA 1861 AND SECTION 3(2)(V), 3(2) (VA) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (POA) ACT] - Petitioner, Accused No. 66 in Crime No. 126 of 2022, sought regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:

On 24.05.2022, a huge mob gathered in Amalapuram Town, violating Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the Police Act, to protest the change of name of Konaseema. The mob pelted stones on Police, burnt vehicles, and damaged property, including the Collectorate Office, Ambedkar Bhavan, and the house of an MLA. The petitioner was arrested on 30.05.2022 and has been in judicial custody since then.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the complaint and no specific attribution was made against him. The court also noted that the petitioner was arrested based on an extra-judicial confession, which is weak evidence. The court further observed that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than a month and that his continued detention was against Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code? 2. Whether the extra-judicial confession made by other accused could be used to implicate the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to regular bail as there was no specific attribution against him in the complaint and the extra-judicial confession made by other accused was weak evidence. The court also noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than a month and that his continued detention was against Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner on certain conditions, including executing a self-bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, not leaving the territory of Amalapuram Taluq Police Station without intimating the SHO concerned, and cooperating with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Subba Reddy Satti, J. - The petitioner, Accused No. 66 in Crime No. 126 of 2022 of Taluka Police Station, Amalapuram, filed this Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking regular bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Pursuant to the above narrated events a case in Crime No. 126 of 2022 of Amalapuram Taluq Police Station, East Godavari District was registered for the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 452, 436, 353, 332, 427, 188, 307 r/w 3, & 4 of PDPPA, Section 32 of PA 1861 and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act.

3. Heard Sri B.V. Subrahmanyeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. I have perused the entire record and anxious consideration is given to the material therein and to the contentions of the both the counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not participated in the agitation and he was not there when the offence took place. He also would submit that vide remand report dated 30.05.2022, the Deputy Superintendent of Police sought for remand of A46 to A59, but not the petitioner, who was arrayed as A66. However, the petitioner is in remand since 30.05.2022. He also would submit that based on the extra judicial confession made by the other accused, the petitioner was implicated in the present case. As extra judicial confession is weak evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of regular bail.

6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition on the ground that the petitioner and others were identified and arrayed in the Crime based on the photographs taken by the Police at the scene of offence. He also filed a Memo stating that Section 15 A(3) of the SC & the ST (PoA) Act, is complied with. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

7. The Petitioner along with others was arrested on 30.05.2022 in connection with the above Crime and the petitioner is in judicial custody since more than a month. It is not the case of the prosecution, that the petitioner's present is still required in any custodial interrogation. In fact no such application was filed before the learned Magistrate seeking custody of the petitioner. Since material part of the investigation is completed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document