Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Mulpuri Prabhu Kanth AT Prem Kumar - Petitioner
versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.5202, 5375 and 5468 of 2024
Decided on : 23-08-2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 437, 439, 480, 483 - The court analyzed the provisions for bail under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses, the nature of the evidence, and the potential for witness tampering in its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves multiple petitioners seeking bail for their alleged involvement in a violent incident at a political party office, where they are accused of mob violence, arson, and criminal conspiracy following political tensions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while some petitioners had significant criminal antecedents, others had been in custody for an extended period without further need for detention, leading to a mixed decision on bail applications.
Issues: The primary issues included the legality of the FIR, the addition of new charges after a significant delay, and the implications of political changes on the prosecution's motives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature and gravity of the accusations, along with the potential for witness tampering, justified the denial of bail for some petitioners while allowing it for others based on their detention duration and the progress of the investigation.
Result: Bail granted for most petitioners; one denied bail due to severity of charges.
ORDER :
Since all the criminal petitions arise in same crime and as they are heard together, they are now to be disposed of by this common order.
2. Crl.P.No.5202 of 2024, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.5 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 436, 450, 452, 506 and120-B read with 149 of I.P.C.
3. Crl.P.No.5375 of 2024, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioners/A.9, A.10, A.12, A.26, A.33, A.41, A.44, A.48, A.57, A.58, A.59, A.60, A.66 and A.70 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 436, 450, 452, 506 and120-B read with 149 of I.P.C.
4. Crl.P.No.5468 of 2024, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.38 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 436, 450, 452, 506 and120-B read with 149 of I.P.C.
5. Heard arguments of Sri K.V.K.Vikram Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.5202 of 2024, Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.No.5375 of 2024 and Sri Varun Byreddy, the learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.5468 of 2024 and Sri K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
6. There are two prominent recognized political parties in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The crime incident in this case took place on 20.02.2023. The scene of offence is situated in TDP party office located in Sri Nagar Colony, Gannavaram Village within the limits of Gannavaram Police Station. The incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023 at about 5.00 P.M. in the evening. This is a case of mob violence, criminal conspiracy, arson of dwelling house, house trespass having made preparation for causing hurt, rioting, armed with deadly weapons, mischief by fire or explosive substance and intentional insults and intimidation at TDP office.
7. The allegations in these cases against the petitioners are that:
• On 18.02.2023, in the afternoon, Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan, who is Ex-MLA for Gannavaram Assembly conducted a press meet and he made some allegations against Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh and their family members by insulting them using un-parliamentary language. In this connection, one Jasti Venkateswara Rao, who is TDP Party President for Gannavaram Assembly constituency along with Sri Dontu Chinna, along with some other TDP leaders conducted press meet on the next day i.e., on 19-02-2023 at 10 A.M. in TDP Party office, Gannavaram and condemned the allegations made by the EX-MLA Sri VallabhaneniVamsi Mohan.
• On 20.02.2023, the de facto complainant, the office boy Pitta Mahesh and car driver Kalyani were present in the office. At about 5 P.M., Sri Vallabaneni Vamsi and Sri Katru Seshu along with others went to TDP party office in two black colour scorpio cars bearing registration Nos.AP 39 LR 0333 and AP 39 LB 0333 threatened the de facto complainant and made enquires about the TDP leaders Pattabi and others and went away by stating that the future of TDP is finished.
• Thereafter at about 5.30 P.M. at the instigation of Sri Vamsi Mohan, the YSRCP leaders and follo
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 court emphasized that prolonged detention without conclusive evidence and the absence of flight risk warrant the granting of bail.
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 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 reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence and the right to bail are fundamental, particularly when evidence is insufficient to justify continued detention.
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 a fair investigation is crucial in determining bail, especially in politically charged cases.
Point of Law : Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
The integrity of the investigation is critical in bail considerations; if tampering or irregularities are present, bail may be denied.
Anticipatory bail petitions under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not maintainable unless prima facie evidence exists, as per Sections 18 and 18....
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
