Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 528 (AP)

Kanakala Prasada Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-13

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - The petitioner in Crl.P.No.2890 of 2020 is A1 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3047 of 2020 are A2, A3, A5, A8 and A9 in Crime No.399 of 2020 of I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram. Therefore, since all the petitioners are the accused in same crime, both the petitions are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These petitions are filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest. The alleged offences against them are under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution that there is a dispute relating to sanitizing the area by the personnel of Vizianagaram Municipality. Therefore, on 13.07.2020, the petitioners herein along with other accused attacked the injured in this case with knives and beat him and caused grievous injuries to him and thereby attempted to kill the injured in this case and committed the aforesaid offences. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially, a report was lodged against the de facto complainant and others in this case and thereafter, the present case was registered on the report lodged by the de facto complainant herein as a counter-blast to the said case and as such the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that A1 is suffering from Corona virus and that he has been admitted in the hospital. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that the contents of the FIR show that specific overtacts are attributed against these petitioners regarding the manner in which they attacked the injured in this case with knives and caused injuries to him and thereby, attempted to kill him. Therefore, in view of the gravity of the offence and as the investigation in this case is pending, he would pray for dismissal of the petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. Therefore, in view of the gravity of the offence and as the investigation in this case is pending, he would pray for dismissal of the petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. As can be seen from the contents of the F.I.R, specific overtacts are attributed against all these petitioners, who are A1, A2, A3, A5, A8 and A9 clearly stating that they are armed with lethal weapon like knives and attacked the injured in this case and caused injuries to him. The wound certificate that is available in the record shows that grievance injury was caused to the injured in this case in the said attack. 9. Therefore, having regard to the fact that specific ovetacts are attributed against these petitioners regarding the manner in which they have attacked the injured in this case with knives and caused grievous injuries to him, this Court is of the considered view that the accusation made against the petitioners is prima facie well-founded. Although, it is stated by the petitioners that this case is registered as a counter-blast to the earlier report lodged by them, as to truth of the said allegations in both the reports and as to who are aggressors are all the material facts to be ascertained by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot come to any conclusion that this is an out and out false case registered as a counter-blast to the earlier report lodged by the petitioners. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that A1 in this case has been suffering from Covid-19 and that he was admitted in the hospital and as the medical record in support of the same is also produced, the Investigating Officer has to take necessary precautions, in case of his arrest in this case, relating to his health condition and only after ascertaining the health condition of A1 and after his recovery from the said ailment, necessary steps are to be taken for his arrest, in case of any necessity. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.