IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) No person accused of an offence can move court for bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. unless he is in custody.
(2) Question whether a person is under arrest or not, depends not on legality of arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his personal liberty to go wherever he pleases.

ORDER

Lalitha Kanneganti, J.—This criminal petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A-4 in connection with Crime No. 1 of 2021 of Nellimarla Police Station, Vizianagaram District, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 427, 503, 506, 323, 120B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short “PDPP Act”).

2. A report was lodged on 02.01.2021 by V. Vijay Sai Reddy, Member of Parliament stating that as he was informed about demolition of idols at Ramatheertham temple, he has decided to visit the temple in order to express deepest concern against the malicious incident that had taken place. He informed the local authorities regarding his visit to the temple and all of them gathered peacefully down the hill. During the course of his visit, the people who are politically motivated ganged up and attacked him with stones, sharp objects and water bottles with an intent to kill him. The activists of YSRCP and others present around protected him along with police force. In the incident, his bodyguard also sustained injuries from the assault launched by Kala Venkata Rao and his henchmen as per the directions of N. Chandrababu Naidu and K. Atchennaidu.

3. It is specifically stated that these activities have taken place under the directions of N. Chandrababu Naidu and K. Atchennaidu and under the supervision of Kala Venkatarao, who is physically present, who instigated the mob to create law and order issues at Ramatheertham temple and also with a criminal intention to kill him. These incidents created horrific situations at the scene and also damaged the bullet proof vehicle and other Government vehicles. The stones thrown by Kala Venkatarao and his followers damaged the glass of bullet proof vehicle, which amounts to destruction of public property. It is stated that the accused should be punished under the provisions of PDPP Act and Sections 307, 326, 427, 503, 506, 323, 120B r/w 34 of IPC. Basing on the said report, the police have registered the present crime.

4. Heard Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner belongs to rival political party with an apprehension that he may be arrested, he along with others filed Crl.P. No. 128 of 2021 before this Court seeking pre-arrest bail. However, the same was closed by order dated 11.01.2021, recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that apprehension of the petitioners is baseless, as their names were not included in the crime. Thus, the question of custody does not arise. He submits that to the surprise of the petitioner, the respondent-police visited his house on 20.01.2021 at 5.00 p.m., dragged him out of his house in most inhuman manner, pushed him into the police vehicle, which was overloaded and crowded by then. He was taken away by pushing aside his family members. He submits that while steps were being taken to file a habeas corpus petition, the police produced him before the Magistrate on 21.01.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of remand, due to ill-health when the petitioner fell down in front of the Magistrate, the police were directed to take A-4 to the Government Hospital and after getting certification that he is physically fit, he was directed to be produced for remand. The other accused were remanded on the same day. He submits that again on 30.01.2021 the police after obtaining medical certificate have produced the petitioner before the Magistrate, on that day the Magistrate was not satisfied with the health condition of the petitioner, as such directed the police to take the petitioner for treatm