Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 541 (AP)

Ravula Venkateswarlu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-24

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.184 of 2020 of Kota Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The alleged offences against him are under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 12.07.2020 the assailants in this case have attacked the deceased in this case with sticks and other weapons and beat him and when the other witnesses in this case, who are accompanying the deceased, ran away that the assailants have also chased them with sticks and other weapons and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation made against the petitioner, who is accused No.1, is only that he has instigated the other accused in this case to attack the deceased and no allegation is made against him in attacking the deceased and killing him. Therefore, she would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondentState while opposing the Criminal Petition would submit that the statements of witnesses so far recorded would clearly disclose the presence of the petitioner herein, who is accused No.1, also at the time of commission of the offence and the fact that he has chased the witnesses with sticks and that he has also instigated the assailants to kill the deceased is also very much apparent and as it is a case registered under Sections 302 r/w. 34 of IPC for sharing common intention and as investigation in this case is still pending, in view of the gravity of the offence, he would pray for dismissal of the criminal petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. This is a case relating to murder of the deceased in this case punishable under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC. 8. Perused the record. 9. This is a case relating to murder of the deceased in this case punishable under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC. As can be seen from the facts of the case, the presence of the petitioner herein, who is accused No.1, is found at the scene of offence at the time of commission of the said offence. The statements of witnesses so far recorded would also disclose that he has chased the witnesses by holding sticks along with other accused. The allegation against him is also that he has instigated the assailants in this case to attack the deceased which prima facie show that he has shared common intention to commit the grave offence of murder along with other accused. Investigation in this case is still pending. Therefore, having regard to gravity of the offence as it is a case of commission of grave offence of murder by sharing the common intention by all the assailants to commit murder of the deceased, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.