IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when called upon.
(2) Bail application – Mere filing of charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen allegations made by prosecution – Completion of investigation cannot at all be taken as a mitigating circumstance to grant bail.

ORDER

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.—This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking bail, by the petitioner/sole accused in Cr.No.195 of 2022 of Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada, initially registered under Section 174 CrPC, later altered to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the deceased worked as a driver of the accused for about six (06) years and at the time of his marriage, the deceased borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the accused and repaid Rs.30,000/- leaving a balance amount of Rs.20,000/- and about three months back the deceased discontinued to work at the accused. Since then, the accused was pressurizing the deceased for repayment of balance amount and on the night of 19.05.2022, the accused contacted the father of the deceased over phone and warned the deceased severely to see his end, if the amount is not paid. Later, when the deceased was consuming liquor with his friends at Nava Bharat school, Kakinada, the petitioner/accused rushed there by car, took the deceased with him to somewhere and later the petitioner/ accused contacted the father of the deceased at 00.52 a.m. and informed that the deceased received injuries due to road accident at Nagamallithota junction. The younger brother of the deceased enquired and confirmed that no accident took place at Nagamallithota junction. Meanwhile, the petitioner/ accused contacted the brother of the deceased and informed that he was taking the deceased to Amrutha Hospital at Janma Bhoomi Park, Kakinada and immediately the brother of the deceased along with some others rushed to Amrutha Hospital and noticed the deceased in the car and duty doctor examined and declared the deceased as dead and later the accused took the dead body of the deceased to Sri Rama Bageechi Enclave Apartment and informed that the deceased died due to injuries received by him in a bike accident and directed the parents of the deceased to cremate the dead body by taking to their native place and offered an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, when they questioned him, the petitioner/accused abused them on their caste and threatened them with dire consequences and went away leaving the dead body of the deceased in his car. The report of mother of the deceased was registered as Cr.No.195 of 2022 under Section 174 CrPC (suspicious death). Later inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and as per the opinion of panchayatdars, the section of law was altered to 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016 (for short, ‘the Act’).

3. Smt. Veedi Nooka Ratnam, mother of the deceased, got filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 under section 15A of the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act, read with Section 482 of CrPC to implead her as respondent No.2 to this Criminal Petition. The same was allowed and she was permitted to come on record as the respondent No.2.

4. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, for Ms.P.Anitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent state and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, for Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/vicim.

5. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, in elaboration, would submit that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence and except the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner/accused said to have been recorded by the police during his custodial interrogation, which is inadmissible in evidence, no other material is available on record to connect the accused with