Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 400 (AP)

Vegullaleela Krishna v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-05-28

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
JUDGMENT M. Venkata Ramana, J. - The petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.108/2020 of Mandapeta Police Station, East Godavari District. The offences alleged are under Sections 323, 306 read with 116 of IPC. It is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Rachakonda Bheemaraju, who is the defacto complainant in this case, was working for the contractor for collecting toll from the vendors in the market for the last two months. On 15-05-2020 at about 5.30 am, when he was collecting such toll from the farmers, who had brought the produce for sale in a school ground, the accused, who belonged to a political party questioned him in collecting the toll at higher rate than prescribed, to which the defacto complainant informed him that he was collecting the toll as per the rates fixed by the Municipal authorities. In that situation, as per the version of prosecution the accused slapped the defacto complainant in the presence of several others in that market area, humiliated him. Unable to bear such humiliation, according to the version of the prosecution, at about 11.30 am on the same day in an open site near Bhasyam School, the defacto complainant consumed an insecticide and attempted to commit to suicide. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital where he was subjected to treatment. 3. On the strength of the complaint of the defacto complainant itself, a case was registered against the petitioner for the offences stated above. 4. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged victim has survived in his attempt and a false complaint is foisted against the petitioner in as much as he questioned about collection of toll at higher rate than prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further brought to the notice of this Court that on the complaint of the accused the Commissioner, Mandapeta Municipality also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- for such illegal and unauthorized act on the part of the contractor. Thus, it is contended even if the case of the prosecution is considered that the petitioner questioned such activities of the contractor, it could not have driven the defacto complainant to such drastic act. 5. Thus, it is contended even if the case of the prosecution is considered that the petitioner questioned such activities of the contractor, it could not have driven the defacto complainant to such drastic act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also informed that even though a notice, dt.16-05-2020 under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C was served directing the petitioner to appear before the concerned Investigating Officer, he did not appear, in as much as he suspected that he would be arrested at the instance of ruling political party members, who are bent upon making the petitioner to face such action. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the municipal contractor who was assigned such responsibility of collecting toll belongs to the ruling political party. 6. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner since there is any amount of justification and since the petitioner is apprehending that he would be subjected to harassment by the concerned police in the guise of arrest. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this petition stating that the material on record is disclosing highhanded behaviour on the part of the petitioner and he did not even care to respond to the notice served by the Investigating Officer under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged as well as the incident, discretion need not be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 9. As seen from the complaint, it is clearly attributed to the petitioner that he not only accosted the defacto complainant for an alleged act in collecting toll at higher rate than prescribed, but also slapped him. This conduct if accepted is demonstrative of highhandedness on the part of the petitioner. A clear overt act is attributed to the petitioner in this respect. The reaction of the defacto complainant, when he was so slapped in the presence of several others in a market area when felt ashamed is reflected, which apparently had driven him to attempt suicide. Nonetheless, all these circumstances are subject matter of investigation. The question relating to collection of higher toll and the action taken by the Municipal authorities against the contractor shall also be subject matter of investigation. 10. Suffice for the present purpose, the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. Nonetheless, all these circumstances are subject matter of investigation. The question relating to collection of higher toll and the action taken by the Municipal authorities against the contractor shall also be subject matter of investigation. 10. Suffice for the present purpose, the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. When they are viewed in the context of the circumstances, which according to the prosecution had driven the defacto complainant to resort such drastic act, it cannot be stated that it is a fit case, to exercise discretion to grant anticipatory bail. Gravity of the incident holds key in the process. Thus, finding no justification to grant anticipatory bail, this petition has to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.