ORDER

1.

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO Criminal Petition No.671 2 of 2018 ORDER:

The petitioner is A.7 of Cr.No.75 of 2018 registered for the offences punishabte under Sections 3(i)(e)@(s) and 3(2) (iii)(va) of the Scheduted Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act') and Sections 148, 324, 435, 436, 477, 447, 1 1 4 and 506(2) r I w 34 lPC. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.06.2018. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took ptace on 15.05.2018, at about 11.45A.M. and one Kanduta Raghubabu-A.1 with his fottowers formed into a mob and came to Mango garden in Sy.Nci.337 of Rayavatasa village with sticks and knives and abused them touching caste and attacked defacto-com ptai na nt and others and also burnt lnnova Car bearing No.AP30 AB 2222 by pouring petrol and also motor bike bearing No.AP 30 AG 3451, 120 car bearing No.AP31 DCJ 6363 and another motor cycte near to the above and got them damaged. lt is in relation to the property dispute where there is an interim injunction order in 1.A.No.656 of 2018 in O.S.No.140 of 2018 dt.09.04.2018 and by viotating the Court orders, the petitioners trespassed and attacked them and burnt the vehictes.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a fatse imptication by roping the petitioner with other accused and the petitioner is innocent.

The learned Public prosecutor opposed the bait apptication saying he is atso privy to the crime.

Heard and perused the bait ap tication averments, the First b lnformation Report, remand report, part-l CD and the earlier dismissal order in the bail apptication by the learned lV Addt.District & Sessions l ., ., '.:..:':

Judge twice and in Crt.M.P.No.207 of 2018 dt.15.06.2018 with an observation that the investigation was not compteted. A perusal of the part- l CD shows more than 7 witnesses were examined.

1 Having regard to the above and by taking into consideration of these facts, the regutar bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the foltowing conditions: -

1. Petitioner shatl execute a self-bond for Rs.50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand onty] each with two sureties for the [ike sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judge (concerned Court). The bond to be obtained is not onty to appear before the Court for enquiry or trial and even after trial to appear before revisional or appettate Court or other -

superior Court vide dec ision -Pre-Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur v. State of Delhi 1982[2]APLJ 43(SC); so that at stage of committal or other proceedings obtaining of fresh bond from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and sotvency earlier produced are ratifying and in existence and enforceable, without even insisting his further presence, such recourse quickens the proceedings at other stages before that Court or other Court without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioner sha[[ report before the investigating officer to titt every day between 9.00A.M. 10.00A.M. fiLing of report/charge sheet as the case may be, and. tit[ comptetion of tria[/enquiry for assurance of their avaitabitity to safeguard the interest of the prosecution of jumping baiI and interference with witnesses until further orders being passed by the learned trial Judge relaxing the same, empowering him by virtue of this order.

3. Petitioner shatl attend before the Court of law regutarty in enquiry and without fait, if not his bait shaLl lriat be cancelled forthwith, any further order so that, lwithout the Learned Judge concerned can also issue NBW by canceting i t the bail from the power under ction 439 [2] Cr.P.C.

s delegated by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Court.

4.

Petitioner shatl not teave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the learned trial Judge.

5.

Petitioner shatl furnish his futt address with property and bank account particulars and submit his passport/s if any, after enta