Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, J.
K.C.Krishna Reddy, S/o.Late K.C.Rami Reddy and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.3887 OF 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Cr.P.C. Section 438, IPC Sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w 149, SC and ST (POA) Act 2015 - The court analyzed the prima facie evidence against the petitioners, concluding that the serious nature of the accusations and the evidence presented did not warrant anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a murder case where they were implicated based on a complaint regarding the death of the deceased, who was involved in a land dispute with one of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented, including confessions from co-accused and call data records, established a prima facie case against the petitioners, indicating their involvement in the murder.
Issues: Whether the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail considering the serious nature of the accusations and the evidence against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the seriousness of the charges and the evidence indicating the petitioners' involvement in the crime outweighed their claims for anticipatory bail.
Result: The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
This petition is filed U/s.438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to direct the respondent/police to enlarge the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr.No.103/2024 of Dharmavaram I Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that they were implicated as A-1 to A-3 in the above crime for the offence under sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Act 2015, which was registered basing on a written report presented by Mr.Birru Rajasekhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘defacto-complainant’), father of Mr.Birru Sampath Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’).
3. The case of the defacto-complainant is that the deceased was practising as an advocate at Hindupur and also working as National Secretary of National Students Union of India (N.S.U.I.) and In-charge of Kerala State. The deceased and one Mr.Srikanth are friends. There were disputes between Srikanth and A-1 with respect to a land situated at Melapuram Cross, Hindupur Town. The deceased was supporting Mr.Srikanth. The deceased was threatened by one Ramanji (A-4) and others over phone for supporting Mr.Srikanth. On 29.05.2024 the deceased informed defacto-complainant that he is going to Court. On 30.05.2024 at about 09.00 a.m. the defacto-complainant came to know that the body of his son was found on Dharmavaram-Yellukuntla road. Immediately, the defacto-complainant went to the spot, and found body of his son with injuries. Therefore, he presented the report to the police. The same was registered as a case in Cr.No.103/2024 of Dharmavaram I Town Police Station.
4. The 1st petitioner is practising as an advocate. The 2nd petitioner is son of the 1st petitioner and he is also practising as an advocate. The 3rd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner, studied M.B.B.S., appearing for Post Graduate entrance examination staying at Hyderabad.
5. The deceased and his friend Mr.Srikanth were involved in real estate disputes. Several criminal cases were registered against the deceased and Mr.Srikanth. Police opened a rowdy sheet against the deceased and Mr.Srikanth. The petitioners are no way concerned with the death of the deceased. The suspicion of the defacto-complainant is baseless and unfounded. No prima facie case is established against the petitioners.
6. There are no allegations in the report presented to the police that the deceased was murdered, as he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to attract the offence U/s.3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 2015. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 (4) SCC 761.
7. The petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.34/2023 on the file of II Addl.District Judge, Hindupur, against Mr.Srikanth and others for recovery of amount. Mr.Srikanth threatened the 1st petitioner and tried to kill him. The 1st petitioner presented a report against Mr.Srikanth and others. The same was registered as a case in Cr.No.251/2023 of Hindupur I Town Police Station.
8. The petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. The police are trying to arrest the petitioners. If the petitioners are arrested, they will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, they filed the application for anticipatory bail.
9. The defacto-complainant was impleaded as 2nd respondent and represented by a counsel Mr.Abdus Saleem.
10. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor took notice on behalf of the State.
11. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing State and Sri Abdus Saleem, learned counsel for the defacto-complainant/2nd respondent.
12. Sri P.Venkateswarlu, lea
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted when there is substantial evidence indicating the accused's involvement in serious offenses.
The court ruled that anticipatory bail is not warranted when substantial evidence suggests involvement in serious criminal offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of incriminating evidence, such as cell phone conversations and meetings, in determining the eligibility for anticipatory bail in a m....
The nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the impact of grant of anticipatory bail are crucial factors in determining the ....
Communications between a client and an advocate are not privileged under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act when the purpose of the communication is to further a crime.
Anticipatory bail should only be granted under exceptional circumstances; the court must consider the nature of accusations, the applicant's history, and potential risks to public safety and the inve....
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
