Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
Boddu Srikant Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 6587 and 6617 of 2020
Decided On : 21-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mohammed Abdul Qader, Advocate
The court's discretion to grant bail must consider the nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and prima facie satisfaction of the accused's involvement.
Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Criminal Offences - IPC Sections 147, 148, 332, 427 read with 149, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Section 3, Explosive Substances Act Sections 4 and 5
Fact of the Case:
The accused were alleged to have conducted blasting activities without permission, assaulted police constables, and damaged public property. The accused sought anticipatory bail, claiming lack of specific allegations and legal bar under the Explosive Substances Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious allegations against the accused, including illegal blasting activities and assault on police constables. The court noted pending investigation and the need for custodial interrogation due to the seriousness of the allegations.
Issues: Nature of offences, ownership of the venture, delay in lodging the complaint, damage to public property, assault on police constables, and legality of blasting activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, pending investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation in deciding not to grant anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications, citing specific allegations, pending investigation, and the seriousness of the offences.
ORDER :
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
1. Criminal Petition No. 6587 of 2020 is filed for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioners therein are accused Nos. 2 to 7 in Crime No. 256 of 2020 pending on the file of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. Whereas, Criminal Petition No. 6617 of 2020 is filed by accused No. 1 for grant of anticipatory bail. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 147, 148, 332 and 427 read with 149 of IPC, Section - 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections - 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
2. Heard Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohammed Abdul Qader, learned counsel for petitioners - accused Nos. 2 to 7 in Crl. P. NO. 6587 of 2020 and Sri Mohammed Abdul Qader, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No. 1 in Crl. P. NO. 6617 of 2020 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State in both the petitions. Perused the record.
3. The allegations against the petitioners herein in the remand report are as follows:
i) On 9.10.2020 at about 19.00 hours, a complaint was received from complainant - P. Venkateshwarlu, Inspector of Police, Special Operation Team (SOT), Bhongir, Rachakonda Commissionerate, in which he has stated that he has received credible information with regard to blasting of rocks in the venture belonging to accused No. 1 without permission and without license in Survey No. 14 of Nerrapally Village.
(ii) On 9.10.2020 at 14.00 hours, the complainant along with his staff went to the said venture in his Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. TS 09PA 4493. In the said venture, he found one Compressor Tractor bearing registration No. AP 26AM 1217. The said Compressor is being used for blasting. 8 more Compressor Tractors were also parked in the venture.
(iii) It is further alleged that the complainant has started enquiring about owners of the said Compressor Tractors. In the meanwhile, owner of the said venture came there and obstructed the complainant from discharging his duty. Accused No. 1 and his followers 25 in number assaulted on the constables viz., PC-6831 and PC-7864 and beat them with hands while they were taking accused No. 1 in the said Bolero Vehicle and, thus, accused No. 1 and his followers deterred the complainant and his staff from discharging their duties. They also damaged the said Bolero Vehicle and escaped from there.
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS - ACCUSED Nos. 2 to 7 IN Crl. P. No. 6587 of 2020:
(i) The learned Senior Counsel would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners - accused Nos. 2 to 7. The role played by them in commission of offence is also not explained in the remand report. There is no injury to any of the victims including staff of the complainant. The scope of investigation is very limited. There is no use of deadly weapons to attract the ingredients against the petitioners herein. The Investigating Officer has already completed investigation.
(ii) The learned senior counsel would further submit that even to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, permission of concerned District Magistrate is compulsory. There is legal bar under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act for filing charge sheet. In the remand report, there is no mention about recovery of any property. There is also no mention about the damage to any of the public property to attract Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
5. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER - ACCUSED No. 1 IN Crl. P. No. 6617 of 2020:
(i) The petitioner was not referred to as accused No. 1. One Mr. B. Srikant Reddy is referred to as accused No. 1. In the remand diary case of accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10, the order of arraigning the accused is changed and the petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 1 and shown him as absconding intentionally to harass him.
(ii) Three agricultural coo
