SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3788 of 2024
Decided On : 26-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli.
For the Respondent: N. Ashwani Kumar, Public Prosecutor (AP).

IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, considering the seriousness of the charges and the potential for witness tampering.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - CrPC Section 438, IPC Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 149, RP Act Section 131(2) - The court analyzed the gravity of accusations, the role of the accused, and the potential for witness tampering, ultimately denying anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the charges and ongoing investigations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for alleged involvement in violent acts during elections, including damaging an EVM and instigating an attack on a complainant, with multiple FIRs filed against him after a significant delay.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution presented a prima facie case against the petitioner, highlighting his criminal antecedents and the potential risk to witnesses if bail were granted, thus justifying the denial of anticipatory bail.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the serious nature of the allegations, his criminal history, and the potential impact on the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, considering the gravity of the accusations and the risk of influencing witnesses.

Result: The petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

ORDER :

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner/A. 1 has filed the Criminal Petition, as per Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail concerning Crime No.53 of 2024, registered at the Rentachinthala Police Station of Palnadu District.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC) and Section 131(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“RP Act”).

3. In brief, the Prosecution's case is that on 13.05.2024, general elections were conducted in the Andhra Pradesh State. The defacto complainant, acting as an agent for the Telugu Desam Party at polling station 202 of Palavaigate, reported that the Petitioner visited the polling booth at 10:30 AM and subsequently left. Later, around noon, the Petitioner returned to the polling booth with A.2 and A.3 and allegedly damaged the EVM machine. When questioned by the defacto complainant about the incident, the Petitioner reportedly threatened him. After this altercation, the Petitioner left the polling station but returned shortly after that. Upon leaving again, polling officials closed the doors of the booth. Outside the polling booth, as soon as the complainant stepped out, the Petitioner allegedly instigated others to attack him. Following the initial incident, 15 individuals, identified as followers of the Petitioner, gathered unlawfully and retrieved weapons such as sticks, rods, and knives from their vehicles. One of them, A.3, allegedly attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod, aiming to cause fatal injuries while A.1 was present. The others proceeded to beat him with sticks, causing him to fall to the ground. Subsequently, the accused departed from the scene of the offence.

4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner/A.1 argues that although the alleged incident took place on 13.05.2024, the FIR was not filed until 23.05.2024, following the filing of a Lunch Motion before this Court; the Petitioner contends, in Criminal Petition No.3775 of 2024, that the offences registered under Crime No.48 of 2024 at Rentachintala Police Station are punishable with a term below seven years. It is stated that two reports, FIR No. 52 of 2024, registered at 9:00 AM and FIR No. 53 of 2024, registered at 9:30 AM, seem to relate to the same incident as described in FIR No.48 of 2024, but no such incident occurred as detailed in these reports. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the police officials, aiming to implicate the defacto complainant in multiple cases, filed a Memo on 23.05.2024, at 4:00 PM, naming him as A.24 in Crime No. 59 of 2024 at Karampudi Police Station. The offence under Sections 143, 147, 307, 332, 435, and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC are contested by the Petitioner, who claims he was not involved in the offence. It is clear from the F.I.R. that the individuals who attacked the defacto complainant are identified, and the Petitioner had no direct or indirect involvement. Furthermore, the learned counsel argues that the Station House Officer has been actively pursuing the Petitioner's arrest to prevent him from selecting agents for the counting process and briefing them on counting procedures.

5. The Respondent-State has submitted a counter, refuting all the allegations presented in the Petition. The contentions outlined in the Counter need not be reiterated, as they essentially mirror the report's content dated 23.05.2024. Additionally, the counter asserts that the Petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a current candidate for MLA in the Macherla Assembly Constituency, involved in violent activities. It states that the Petitioner is the primary accused in this case and has numerous ruthless associates. It states that if the Petitioner remains free in public, it could endanger the lives of many innocent people and create widespread fear in the villages

                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                          1
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
                          6
                          7
                          8
                          9
                          10
                          11
                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                          supreme today icon
                          logo-black

                          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

                          qr

                          Scan Me!

                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                          whatsapp-icon Back to top