Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO. J,
Bhumireddy Srinivasula Reddy S/o. Bhunireddy Chinna Venkata Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Pendlimarri P.S. – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2192 OF 2024
Decided On : 19-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

Anticipatory bail is granted when there is insufficient prima facie evidence for abetment of suicide, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for direct incitement.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Anticipatory bail sought for alleged abetment of suicide - The court noted the importance of prima facie evidence in granting anticipatory bail and stated: 'If there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the Prosecution, the ordinary course of events is that the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail.' (Para 6) - 'Arrest should be the last option.' (Para 6) - 'The law presumes an accused to be innocent until proven guilty.' (Para 8) - 'There must be proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide.' (Para 20) - Court granted anticipatory bail on the grounds of lack of substantial evidence implicating the accused in abetting suicide and stated: 'At this stage, it is somewhat difficult...to conclude that the Petitioners instigated the deceased to commit suicide...' (Para 26) -

Result: Criminal Petition allowed; anticipatory bail granted under conditions. (Paras 30)

ORDER :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO. J,

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail under Sections 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') to Petitioners/A.1 & A.2 in Crime No.53 of 2024 of Pendlimarri Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District, registered for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the wife of deceased gave complaint stating that the deceased was working as ticket collector in AR & BCVR Travells at Proddatur town and it belongs to A.1 and A.2. On 19.03.2024 at 12.30 p.m., the deceased committed suicide at his fields by consuming pesticide poison as the accused under whom the deceased was working abused the deceased in filthy language by touching his caste name in front of his co-workers and insulted him. The deceased left the suicidal note.

3. Leaned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case; a prima facie evaluation of FIR and suicidal note does not disclose the offence of abetment of suicide against the Petitioners; Defacto Complainant implicated the Petitioners as an afterthought at the instance of relatives his relatives in order to harass the Petitioners; the deceased used to work in the AR & BCVR Travels and the Petitioners have no idea about the deceased's caste nor scolded the deceased nor abetted the deceased; there is no whisper to attract the offences of SC & ST against the Petitioners; there is no direct contact between the deceased and the Petitioners; abusing someone with caste name during argument won't lead to attract offence under section SC & ST Act; Petitioners had never committed any offence as alleged by the Defacto Complainant and there is no iota of truth whatsoever in the said allegations; Petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions which this Hon'ble Court deem fit impose.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners on the ground that the investigation is not completed.

5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the report.

6. It is settled law that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the accusation's nature and gravity and the accused's exact role must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. If there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the Prosecution, the ordinary course of events is that the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case.

7. This Court views the power to authorize detention as a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. The attitude of arresting first and then proceeding with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool for police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motives.

8. The law presumes an accused to be innocent until his guilt is proven. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right of liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution India.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on decision in Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2018) 6 SCC 454 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

79.2 There is no absolute bar against grant of antici