Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Guvvala Satya Tirupathi
Rao and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.7104 and 7115 of 2022
Decided on 15.9.2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Pre-arrest bail – Stone pelting and damage to public property in mob violence – Prosecution identified accused basing on CC TV footage, social media videos and photos – Except mentioning names of accused in FIR, no specific overt acts were attributed against petitioner or any other accused – Nothing is forthcoming from record to show that all people in mob had a common intention of committing offence – Mob gathered for submitting their representations at Collectorate office, but not with intention of committing any offence – Mob was not armed with weapons – Name of petitioner is not reflected in complaints – Basing on confession made by other accused regarding role of petitioner, petitioner was arrayed as accused – It is a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner with certain conditions – Pre-arrest bail granted. (Paras 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 21)
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
ORDER (COMMON)
Since the petitioners/Accused are one and the same and the above crimes were registered in relation to Konaseema agitation, they are being disposed of by this common order.
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the petitioners/Accused in the following crimes:
Crime No.127 of 2022 dated 24.05.2022 of Amalapuram Taluq Police Station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 452, 436, 307 r/w. 149 of IPC, Section 32 of Police Act, 1861 and Section 3 (2) (v), 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Amendment Act, 2015 (01/2016).
Crime No.126 of 2022 dated 24.05.2022 of Amalapuram Taluq Police Station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 452, 436, 353, 332, 427, 188, 307 r/w. 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 (2) (v), 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Amendment Act 2015 (01/2016).
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.05.2022 on a call given by JAC of Konaseema Sadhana Committee, huge number of people gathered for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema District, by violating the order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the Police Act. The mob started rally at Kalasam Centre, Amalapuram Town and proceeded to Clock Tower Centre and in the meanwhile various groups of public came from four corners to the clock tower centre and formed into a huge mob.
Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to Collectorate, when Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and also burnt BVC college bus which was used as transport vehicle for Police.
Further, when the Police tried to control the mob at Collectorate, the mob pelted stones on Police personnel due to which some of the Police sustained injuries, damaged the glasses of Collectorate Office and Ambedkar Bhavan.
Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthenna), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses.
The mob further moved towards the house of Hon’ble Minister. When the mob shouted and beat police persons, AR constable fired rounds in air, but agitators attacked complainant and his staff; attacked staff of the Hon’ble Minister, caused damage to the furniture and set fire to the house of the Minister and later proceeded to the house of local MLA. Basing on the complaint lodged by the watchman of the house of the Minister, Crime No.127 of 2022 was registered and basing on the complaint lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police Crime No.126 of 2022 was registered.
Though notice is required to be served on the victim as per The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Amendment Act 2015 (01/2016), since notices to the victim have been served in Crl.P.Nos.6604 and 6617 of 2022 as well as other crimes, no prejudice words be caused even if no notice is served on the victim.
3. Heard Sri Banka Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that the petitioner No.1 is accused in Crime No.139 of 2022 of Amalapura Town Police Station and he was arrested on 24.07.2022. Subsequently, he filed bail petition before this Court vide Crl.P.No.5061 of 2022 and this Court granted regular bail to the petitioner No.1 on 03.08.2022. It is also further contended that the petitioner No.2 was also shown as accused in other crimes and also got anticipatory bail before the Court below. Learned c
Pre-arrest bail can be granted where allegations are not supported by evidence on record.
In cases of unlawful assembly and rioting, the prosecution must establish that the accused had a common intention of committing an offence.
The absence of specific overt acts against a petitioner amidst a large assembly precludes refusal of anticipatory bail under relevant IPC provisions.
Anticipatory Bail – While considering prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, balance has to be struck between two factors; no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation and there....
Confessional statements made by an accused person to a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
Confessional statements made by accused persons before a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
Point of Law : Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
The court holds that in order to establish an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC, there must be a common intention among the members of the assembly to commit an offense. The court also h....
Confessional statements made by an accused person to a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.
In order to establish the offenses of unlawful assembly, rioting, and attempt to murder, the prosecution must prove that there was a common intention among the protestors to commit the offenses.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
