IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Sri Nandigam Suresh Babu, S/o. Poul - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Amaravathi - Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos.6295 and 6306 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 437, 439 CrPC - The court discussed the principles governing bail, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that confessions made to police are not admissible as evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two petitions for bail related to a violent incident at a political party office, where the petitioners were accused of leading a mob that attacked opposition party members, resulting in injuries and property damage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had been in custody for a month, the investigation was largely complete, and their continued detention was unnecessary, despite their alleged involvement in the crime.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges, their alleged roles, and the status of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule must prevail, especially when the prosecution failed to justify continued detention.
Result: Both criminal petitions for bail are allowed with conditions.
ORDER :
(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) :
1. The criminal petition No.6295 of 2024 under sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioner/A83 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.650 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station of Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 506, 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109, 120B, 149 of the IPC.
2. The criminal petition No.6306 under sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioner/A80 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.650 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station of Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 506, 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109, 120B, 149 of the IPC.
3. Heard arguments of learned senior counsels, Sri Siddarth Dave, Sri P.Veera Reddy and Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy for petitioners and heard arguments of learned senior counsel, Sri Siddarth Luthra and learned Public Prosecutor, Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana for respondent/State.
4. Contesting the contentions in both the petitions, counters were filed by the respondent.
5. The brief facts of the case are
There are two prominent recognized political parties in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The crime incident in this case took place on 19.10.2021. By then, the YSR Congress Party was in power. The scene of offence is Andhra Pradesh State’s TDP office situate along NH6 Highway road, Athmakuru Panchayat, Mangalagiri Mandal. TDP was in the opposition when this incident occurred on 19.10.2021. FIR No.650 of 2021 was registered on the date of incident/19.10.2021. The incident allegedly occurred at about 5.30 pm in the evening. The petitioners along with 70 others belonging to YSRCP party came in cars and other vehicles and they were possessed of iron rods, hammers, hockey sticks etc. They reached the TDP State office and forcibly pushed aside the security guard and forcibly entered the front office and demolished the furniture. It is mentioned that several TDP workers were there in the building at that time. This mob of people attacked many TDP supporters and employees. There were about five injured. The statement of one of the injured persons was recorded at about 9.00 pm in Manipal hospital. Acting upon that statement, FIR was registered at about 11.00 pm. The FIR was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 506 read with 149 IPC. Police embarked upon the investigation. They identified several accused. Some witnesses were examined. Thereafter, electronic evidence was collected and the investigating officer on verifying the medical records and all other materials he collected had arrived at an opinion that the facts do indicate to him the operation of sections 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109, 120B IPC. On 03.07.2024, he had filed a memo before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mangalagiri informing the court that the case has to be considered for these penal provisions also.
6. Sri N.Suresh Babu/A80 is formerly Member of the Parliament. Sri Avutu Srinivasa Reddy/A83 is a business man. Their essential contentions are that the crime was registered in the year 2001 and nearly three years thereafter they were arrested in the year 2024. They are falsely implicated and the record does not indicate any specific role allegedly played by them. Since they are supporters of YSRCP the present establishment purposefully implicated them by bringing in additional penal provisions before which time they were served with Section 41A Cr.P.C. notices to which there was due compliance on part of the petitioners.
7. The contentions of the State in opposing the prayer for regular bail of A80 are essentially on the following points:
He is earlier involved in 11 crimes. The details are furnished by the prosecution by way of a note.
| Cr.No . 93 of 2010 of Thulluru Police Station |
|
P. Chidambaram V. Central Bureau of Investigation
Hari Charan Kurmi And Jogia Hajam V. State of Bihar
Sanket Bhadresh Modi V. Central Bureau of Investigation and Selvi V. State of Karnataka
Bail is a right, not a privilege, and should not be denied without substantial justification, especially when the investigation is complete.
The court established that in bail applications, the nature of accusations and the progress of investigation are critical factors, and undue delay in investigation may favor granting bail.
The court emphasized that prolonged detention without conclusive evidence and the absence of flight risk warrant the granting of bail.
The court established that the severity of charges and potential for witness tampering are critical factors in bail considerations, alongside the duration of pre-trial detention.
The integrity of the investigation is critical in bail considerations; if tampering or irregularities are present, bail may be denied.
The court denied anticipatory bail due to sufficient evidence of involvement in a politically motivated violent incident, emphasizing the need for public order and the integrity of the investigation ....
The court established that a fair investigation is crucial in determining bail, especially in politically charged cases.
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence and the right to bail are fundamental, particularly when evidence is insufficient to justify continued detention.
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.