Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 444 (AP)

Kadaveru Laxmamma v. State of Telangana

2017-07-21

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2017
ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. In this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C,, 1973 the petitioner/A.3 seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 74/2017 of Valigonda PS, Rachakonda Commissioner ate registered for the offences under Section 324, 506 r/w 34IPC and Section 3(l)(r)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "SC & ST POA Act"). 2. The defacto complainant gave report to the police alleging that on 19-04-2017 at about 9:00 hours, when A-1 was unlawfully felling the tree in front of the house, the complainant questioned him. On that A-l allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language and also in the name of his caste. At that time one Nagilla Shekar intervened in the dispute but he too was abused by A-1. Thereafter the villagers namely Kaluri Shakaraiah, Mallam Salaiah, Cheva Venkataiah etc., came there and intervened. In the meanwhile A-l beat the complainant with a saw and his family members i.e., A-2 and A-3 also attacked him. Investigation is reported to be pending. 3. Denying the allegations learned counsel for petitioner would seek bail on the main submission that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true, the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act would have no application because there is no specific allegation against the petitioner that she abused the defacto complainant in the name of this caste. Barring the said offence, the allegations of attack would attract only Section 324 and 506 IPC which are not grave offences. Further, the petitioner is a lady. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Paracha Mohan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2013 (2) ALD (CRL.) 535 (AP), to buttress his argument that when the FIR prima facie do not attract any of the offences under the SC & ST POA Act, the bar under Section 18 of the Act will have no application and the Court can consider the request for granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 4. Per contra, while opposing the bail application, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though in the FIR there is no specific allegation that the petitioner/A.3 abused the defacto complainant in the name of his caste but in his 161 Cr.P.C statement, he clearly mentioned that all the accused abused him in the name of his caste and attacked him and therefore, Section 18 of the Act will pose as an interdict for considering the bail application. He would further submit that investigation is still pending and only 7 witnesses are examined so far and charge sheet is yet to be filed. 5. Admittedly, the present application is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, 1973seeking pre-arrest bail. One of the offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused is under Section 3(l)(r)(s) of the SC & ST POA Act. Therefore, Section 18 of the Act in normal course is an interdict for considering the bail application. However, in Paracha Mohan Rao (supra) a learned Judge of this Court considering the decisions of the Apex Court reported in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2008) 12 SCC 531 and Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2011) 11 SC 259 = 2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 82 (SC), observed thus: "Para 11: The crucial question to be addressed is therefore; merely because a crime was registered against an individual under the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, whether he cannot move the High Court or Court of Session for anticipatory bail under any circumstances. In this context, it would be relevant to notice that any provision of law car uc misused for various reasons. A duty is cast upon the Court to protect the individuals from false implication in grave crimes, in cases where the provisions of the anticipatory bail are excluded. For this purpose, it is true that the Courts are not supposed to test the veracity of the version mentioned in the first information report/complaint. A duty is cast upon the Court to protect the individuals from false implication in grave crimes, in cases where the provisions of the anticipatory bail are excluded. For this purpose, it is true that the Courts are not supposed to test the veracity of the version mentioned in the first information report/complaint. But, when the allegations mentioned in the first information report/complaint in their entirety do not attract a particular offence under the Act, then the High Court or the Court of Session can exercise their discretion to grant anticipatory bail." As can be seen from the above dictum, when the allegation in the FIR/complaint in their entirety, do not attract a particular offence under the Special Act, then the High Court or the Court of Session can exercise its discretion to grant anticipatory bail. Here the emphasis is given on FIR/complaint. A perusal of the FIR would show that no specific allegation of abusing in the name of caste is made against the petitioner/A.3. of course in the 161 Cr.P.C statement, the complainant stated as if all the accused abused him in the name of this caste. The veracity of such statement in view of conspicuous absence of similar allegation in FIR, needs to be determined only after full-fledged investigation. Since the allegations touching the abuse in the name of caste are absent in FIR, the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 can be considered. Further, the wound certificate of the complainant shows he suffered simple injuries. Considering all the aforesaid facts and petitioner is a lady, this petition is allowed. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner/A.3 is directed to surrender before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramanrapret, on or before 28-07-2017 and on such surrender, she shall be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond for Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the said Court., On release, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency for smooth completion of investigation. Further, she is directed to appear before SHO, Valigonda PS on every Sunday between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm for a period of four (4) months or till charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier. 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.