Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 581 (AP)

Kommineni Ravisankar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-08

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 A-9 in Crime No.574 of 2020 of Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District. 3. The offences registered against him are under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."). 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was running a private YouTube channel. He has taken some intimate photographs of A-1 when he was with a woman, with whom he got intimacy and uploaded the same in YouTube channel. Similarly, as the petitioner, who is A-9 is doing sand business and got a sand ramp. The deceased has taken the pictures of his sand ramp and also uploaded the same in the YouTube channel, which caused loss of crores of rupees to the petitioner herein in his sand business. Therefore, A-1 has decided to do away with the life of the deceased. When he approached the petitioner herein, he has rendered financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- to A-1 to commit murder of the deceased. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 together committed murder of the deceased in this case. After commission of the murder of the deceased, his dead body was concealed in a pit and thereby they have also made an attempt to screen the offence and also to screen the evidence relating to the said offence of murder. After A-1 and A-2 are arrested and when they were interrogated, they disclosed the role played by A-3 to A-8 in concealing the evidence and on their arrest, when A-3 was interrogated, they disclosed that the petitioner herein has rendered financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- to A-1 for the purpose of committing the said murder. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation of committing murder of the deceased is only against A-1 and A-2 and the only allegation against the petitioner herein is that he has rendered financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- to A-1 to commit murder of the deceased and the said allegation is also made on account of the alleged statement said to have been given by A-3 after his arrest and as the petitioner did not commit any murder of the deceased and as no evidence is also available at this stage to show that the petitioner has rendered financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- to A-1, except the statement of A-3, he would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has been apprehending arrest and harassment in the hands of the police in this case. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that after A-3 was arrested and when he was interrogated, it has come to light through his statement, regarding the role played by the petitioner herein in hatching up conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased and it is revealed that he has rendered financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- to A-1 to commit murder of the deceased and as such, his role played in doing away with the life of the deceased in this case is apparent from the record and investigation in this case is still pending and he would submit that in view of the gravity of the offence and as it is a case of murder of the deceased punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and also under Section 201 of I.P.C., that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. No doubt, as per the facts of the prosecution case, the main culprits, who committed murder of the deceased is A-1 and A-2. A-1 appears to have bore grudge against the deceased, as he has taken intimate photographs of A-1 when he was with a woman, with whom he got intimacy and got the same uploaded in the YouTube channel. No doubt, as per the facts of the prosecution case, the main culprits, who committed murder of the deceased is A-1 and A-2. A-1 appears to have bore grudge against the deceased, as he has taken intimate photographs of A-1 when he was with a woman, with whom he got intimacy and got the same uploaded in the YouTube channel. Therefore, he bore grudge against him and decided to do away with the life of the deceased as per the version of the prosecution. Similarly, as per the facts of the prosecution case, the petitioner herein, who is A-9 also got grievance against the deceased, as it is alleged that the deceased has taken photographs of the land ramp, where the petitioner is doing sand business and uploaded the same in the YouTube, which resulted into loss of crores of rupees to the petitioner. Therefore, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein rendered financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- to A-1 to commit murder of the deceased. Thereafter, A-1 with the help of his friend, who is A-2 designedly committed murder of the deceased and thereafter concealed the said body in a pit and made an attempt to screen the evidence of the offence. 10. Therefore, a close consideration of the facts of the prosecution show that a conspiracy is hatched up to commit murder of the deceased in this case, by A-1 and A-9, who is the petitioner herein, as they bore grudge against him for uploading the photographs as alleged supra in the YouTube. Even though the petitioner did not actually commit murder of the deceased in this case, his role in hatching up a conspiracy to commit the said murder by rendering financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- to A-1, has come to light from the statement of A-3. Investigation is going on in the said lines at present. Investigation in this case is still pending. Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offence and as it is a case of murder of the deceased and as conspiracy is involved, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offence and as it is a case of murder of the deceased and as conspiracy is involved, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The mere fact that A-9, who was already arrested and thereafter released on bail, cannot be a ground to consider this petition, which is filed for grant of anticipatory bail. 12. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.