IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. This criminal petition under sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioners/A34, A35, A43 and A56 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. Heard arguments of Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/state and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

3. In every case of a crime, when the criminal justice machinery is put into motion, there emerge competing claims. State prays for the safety of its citizens and the citizens pray for their liberty from the inappropriate handling of investigation by the police officers. Therefore, there is insistence for a matured jurisprudence of bail which is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. The rival contentions advanced in this bail application fall for assessment in the context of the following facts available from the record.

4. 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. 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. In terms of sections 41 and 41A CrPC, notices were issued as the offences for which the FIR was registered were punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years. It seems the statements of about eight witnesses were recorded during that phase of investigation. There was a lull in the investigation process. Years passed by. Democratic elections took place. The party in the opposition when this offence was committed won the mandate of the people and the party holding the power by the time of this offence is now in opposition.

5. Though the offence took place way back in the year 2021 and though about three years elapsed, the investigation did not conclude. Over a period, transfers took place for public servants and the same is with the police also. New investigating officer had taken charge of his police station. Law and call of duty ordain every public servant to complete the lawful work pending as well as the present. That sequence of natural events brought swiftness in the investigation of this crime. Thereafter, there is the next phase of investigation. In this phase, some more witnesses were examined. 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 03.07.2023, 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. As per the case diary, there is one person by name Sri Kommareddy Pattabhi. He made certain statements on 19.10.2021 against the then Chief Minister of the State. Record does not bear what exactly were those statements. However, record indicates that the statements of the said individual were considered derogatory by the then ruling party leaders and foll