IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Yeddula Bhaskar Reddy, and Others – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No: 3916/2024
Decided On : 01-07-2024
ORDER :
K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners herein/A8 and A9, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.75 of 2024 of SVU Campus Police Station, Tirupathi District.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein/A8 and A9 and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 324, 427, 120B read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’).
3. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 14.05.2024 at 3.00 PM at the premises of Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati, the de facto complainant went to Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati in his car bearing registration No.AP03 CD 6688 along with his gunman, driver viz. Ranjith and his attendant Saravana to attend the strong room inspection at the time of deposit of EVM boxes and its preservation procedure. At that time, when he was about to reach at a near distance to the strong room, the followers of MLA viz. C.Bhaskar Reddy and his son C.Mohit Reddy, his followers A1 and A2 along with his men with a criminal conspiracy and common intention, armed with deadly weapons i.e. hammer, iron rods, beer bottles and cricket bats were alleged to have attacked them by obstructing his car. They were alleged to have damaged the car and attempted to commit murder of de facto complainant by hacking and beating him with deadly weapons. A1 and A2 were alleged to have attacked him and caused injuries to his left shoulder and caused dumb injuries on his body and when his gunman came to his rescue, A1 was alleged to have beat him with a big hammer and tried to kill him and caused grievous injury. Basing on the report of de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.75 of 2024 of SVU Campus, Tirupathi District was registered for the alleged offences and investigated into.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein/A8 and A9 contends that petitioners herein/A8 and A9 were arrested on 16.05.2024 and since then, they are in judicial remand. Major portion of investigation has been completed except filing of charge sheet.
5. On the other hand, Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the de facto complainant contends that the entire incident is videographed and on perusal of the said video goes to show that it is a preplanned attack on the de facto complainant and another in order to eliminate them.
6. On the contrary, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that all the accused in a mob attacked the de facto complainant. According to him, the police have to identify the assailants by watching the videograph, unless the Test Identification Parade is conducted, it is difficult to identify them. He further submits that along with de facto complainant, one public servant viz. Dharani Kumar was also got injured.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
8. On the date of the incident, the contesting candidate, who is de facto complainant and another went to Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupathi in his car along with his gunman to attend the strong room inspection at the time of deposit of EVM boxes and its preservation as per the schedule served to him. The accused conspired together and with a common intention, armed with deadly weapons had damaged the car and attempted to beat with rods and beer bottles. A1 and A2 were alleged to have attacked the de facto complainant and caused injury to his left shoulder and dumb injuries on his body parts. On seeing the same, the gunman of the de facto complainant had come to his rescue. It is alleged that A1 and A2 attacked him and caused grievous injuries to him. At that point of time, the gunman has opened fire and the assailants ran away by leaving their vehicles.
9. This Court has perused the Wound Certificate of public servant viz. M.Dharani Kumar and de facto complainant viz. Pullivarthi Venkata Muni Prasad. Insofar as the Wound Certificate in respect of de facto complainant viz. Pullivarthi Venkata Muni Prasad, the D
Kalyan Chandra Sarka Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another
Prolonged detention without identification of accused is unjustified; bail granted to petitioners with conditions.
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence and the right to bail are fundamental, particularly when evidence is insufficient to justify continued detention.
The court established that a fair investigation is crucial in determining bail, especially in politically charged cases.
Theory of close-range shot is just a conjecture of the investigating agency and is not based on scientific fact.Simply because copper like pieces were found near the exit wound of the body, as per th....
In cases of large-scale violence, bail may be granted to accused persons who are not shown to have committed specific acts of violence or damage to property, especially if other accused have been gra....
Bail granted considering detention period, non-grievous injuries, and advanced investigation stage despite serious assault allegations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence, pending charges, and the expected trial duration in the decision to grant bail.
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....
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.