Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 866 (TS)

Boddu Srikant Reddy v. State of Telangana

2020-12-21

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2020
ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. Criminal Petition No. 6587 of 2020 is filed for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioners therein are accused Nos. 2 to 7 in Crime No. 256 of 2020 pending on the file of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. Whereas, Criminal Petition No. 6617 of 2020 is filed by accused No. 1 for grant of anticipatory bail. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 147, 148, 332 and 427 read with 149 of IPC, Section - 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections - 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 2. Heard Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohammed Abdul Qader, learned counsel for petitioners - accused Nos. 2 to 7 in Crl. P. NO. 6587 of 2020 and Sri Mohammed Abdul Qader, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No. 1 in Crl. P. NO. 6617 of 2020 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State in both the petitions. Perused the record. 3. The allegations against the petitioners herein in the remand report are as follows: i) On 9.10.2020 at about 19.00 hours, a complaint was received from complainant - P. Venkateshwarlu, Inspector of Police, Special Operation Team (SOT), Bhongir, Rachakonda Commissionerate, in which he has stated that he has received credible information with regard to blasting of rocks in the venture belonging to accused No. 1 without permission and without license in Survey No. 14 of Nerrapally Village. (ii) On 9.10.2020 at 14.00 hours, the complainant along with his staff went to the said venture in his Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. TS 09PA 4493. In the said venture, he found one Compressor Tractor bearing registration No. AP 26AM 1217. The said Compressor is being used for blasting. 8 more Compressor Tractors were also parked in the venture. (iii) It is further alleged that the complainant has started enquiring about owners of the said Compressor Tractors. In the meanwhile, owner of the said venture came there and obstructed the complainant from discharging his duty. Accused No. 1 and his followers 25 in number assaulted on the constables viz., PC-6831 and PC-7864 and beat them with hands while they were taking accused No. 1 in the said Bolero Vehicle and, thus, accused No. 1 and his followers deterred the complainant and his staff from discharging their duties. Accused No. 1 and his followers 25 in number assaulted on the constables viz., PC-6831 and PC-7864 and beat them with hands while they were taking accused No. 1 in the said Bolero Vehicle and, thus, accused No. 1 and his followers deterred the complainant and his staff from discharging their duties. They also damaged the said Bolero Vehicle and escaped from there. 4. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS - ACCUSED Nos. 2 to 7 IN Crl. P. No. 6587 of 2020: (i) The learned Senior Counsel would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners - accused Nos. 2 to 7. The role played by them in commission of offence is also not explained in the remand report. There is no injury to any of the victims including staff of the complainant. The scope of investigation is very limited. There is no use of deadly weapons to attract the ingredients against the petitioners herein. The Investigating Officer has already completed investigation. (ii) The learned senior counsel would further submit that even to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, permission of concerned District Magistrate is compulsory. There is legal bar under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act for filing charge sheet. In the remand report, there is no mention about recovery of any property. There is also no mention about the damage to any of the public property to attract Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 5. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER - ACCUSED No. 1 IN Crl. P. No. 6617 of 2020: (i) The petitioner was not referred to as accused No. 1. One Mr. B. Srikant Reddy is referred to as accused No. 1. In the remand diary case of accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10, the order of arraigning the accused is changed and the petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 1 and shown him as absconding intentionally to harass him. (ii) Three agricultural coolies were abducted on 09.10.2020 at 2.00 p.m. by the Executives (LWs.1 to 5, 8 and 9) and detained them illegally and compelled them to refer the name of petitioner in confession and later arrested them on 10.10.2020 at 13:00 hours, but nothing was seized from their possession. LWs.1 to 5, 8 and 9 are interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined. LWs.1 to 5, 8 and 9 are interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined. (iii) The petitioner herein has lodged complaint dated 09.10.2020 to the Director General of Police against the complainant and others for their illegal acts and also their interference in civil disputes. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said complaint, there is no action initiated against the complainant and others. (iv) The petitioner herein is not the owner of the said venture and one Mrs. Palvai Vajramma is the owner of the said venture and Mr. Akula Yadagiri is the registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) Holder. He is representing M/s. Sri Lakshmi Bhavani Enterprises. The said facts are specifically mentioned in the proceedings dated 18.05.2019 and 27.06.2019 of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal respectively. (v) There is delay in lodging the complaint and also there is delay in sending the FIR to the Court concerned. (vi) There are no specific allegations against each of the accused including the petitioner herein. (vii) In the remand report, it is specifically mentioned that after registration of crime on 09.10.2020, LW.9 examined and recorded the detailed statements of LWs.1 to 5 in Part-II CD and later on the next day LW.9 visited the scene of offence, caused discreet enquiry into the facts of the case, later secured the presence of LWs.6 and 7. Thus, there is delay in lodging the complaint, recording the statements of LWs.1 to 5 and also delay in further proceedings. In the enclosures to the remand report, it is mentioned that Part-II statement of LW.1 and therefore the said fact would reveal that LW.9 has not recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 5 as mentioned in the remand report. By referring to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that accused No. 1 was falsely implicated in the present case. (viii) Accused No. 1 has placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Sau. By referring to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that accused No. 1 was falsely implicated in the present case. (viii) Accused No. 1 has placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 847 (b) Kamlesh v. The State of Rajasthan1 (c) Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2016) 1 SCC 152 (d) Rashmi Chopra v. State of U.P. (2020) 1 SCC (Crl.) 286 (e) Ankush Maruti Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra (2020) 1 SCC (Crl.) 315 (f) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 248 (SC) (g) A. Omkar v. The Commissioner of Police, Hyd. 1997 (1) ALT (Crl.) 63 (DB) and (h) State of Kerala v. P.B. Sourabhan. (ix) Accused Nos. 8 to 10 were released on bail. There are no specific allegations or overt acts against the petitioner except making a bald allegation. 6. With the above said submissions, they sought to consider the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners. 7. COMMON CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: (i) There are serious allegations against the petitioners herein. They are conducting blasting without permission. The police have found parking of eight (08) Compressor Tractors and also one (01) Compressor Tractor bearing No. AP 26AM 1217 which was used for blasting purpose. (ii) The petitioners along with other accused have assaulted the staff of the complainant including the police constables. They have also damaged the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. TS 09PA 4493, which is a public property and, thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. (iii) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 have already filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 256 of 2020, and this Court vide order dated 30.11.2020, has dismissed the said petition. In the said petition, accused Nos. 1 to 7 have also sought stay of all further proceedings in the said crime including their arrest which this Court did not grant. (iv) The contentions of the accused with regard to the delay in lodging the complaint, the delay in sending the FIR to the Court concerned, recording of statements, ownership of Venture etc., are matters to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. (v) Since the allegations against the accused herein are serious in nature and, therefore, their custodial interrogation is required. (v) Since the allegations against the accused herein are serious in nature and, therefore, their custodial interrogation is required. Instead of co-operating with the Investigating Officer, the accused are absconding and, therefore, the Investigating Officer is unable to proceed with the investigation. (vi) Accused are influential people and there is every possibility of interfering with the investigation and threatening with the witnesses. (vii) With the above said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present application for anticipatory bail. CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT: 8. The above submissions and the allegations would reveal that there are serious allegations of undertaking blasting activities without permission by the accused including the petitioners herein. There is also allegation of damage caused to the Bolero Vehicle belonging to the police, public property. The police have found one Compressor Tractor bearing registration No. AP 26AM 1217 at the subject property. The police have also found eight (08) more Compressor Tractors parked in the subject property. The P.C. numbers of constables on whom the accused have assaulted and beat were also specifically mentioned. Thus there are serious allegations of deterring the complainant - Inspector of Police, SOT and his staff from discharging their duties and damaging the public property. The investigation is still pending. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of nine (09) witnesses and he has to record the statements of some more witnesses. 9. According to accused No. 1, he has lodged a complaint dated 09.10.2020 to the Director General of Police and others by sending the same through post and according to him despite receiving and acknowledging the same, no action has taken. 10. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that on 09.10.2020 at about 1.15 p.m. accused No. 1 was with his friends i.e., Bhaskar Reddy and Srikanth Reddy. Two persons first came on two-wheeler followed by another on another two-wheeler. They made some enquiries with him. Thereafter a white Bolero vehicle came there and the above said persons have behaved with him like rowdies on the instructions of a man who came in the Bolero, a private vehicle, that too in civil dress and he has claimed that he is Inspector, SOT. They have not shown their I.D. Cards. They have tried to kidnap accused No. 1 and by hearing his shouting, others, who were present there, rescued him and saved his life. They have not shown their I.D. Cards. They have tried to kidnap accused No. 1 and by hearing his shouting, others, who were present there, rescued him and saved his life. They have forcibly and illegally snatched away his mobile and threatened him that they will eliminate and destroy his future and family. Thus, the complainant and others have acted illegally and also in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar cases. Thus, he has life threat from them. 11. It is also mentioned in the said complaint dated 09.10.2020 that the so-called duplicate public servants are also interfering with the civil disputes and are in fact misused by other side by various considerations. He has firm believe that local Sarpanch is illegally demanding Rs. 1.00 Crore or else he has threatened them to implicate them in false cases. They are also misusing the politicians and police officials. S.H.O., Ibrahimpatnam has illegally detained accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 at the behest of the Sarpanch. 12. It is trite to note that according to accused No. 1, despite receiving and acknowledging the said complaint, the police officials including the DGP, Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate and others have not acted upon the same. But, he has not taken any steps on the same. He has not even filed any complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. or a writ petition challenging the said inaction on the part of the Police Officials. 13. A perusal of the said complaint would reveal that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 7 were present at the spot on 09.10.2020. He has also specifically mentioned that others were also present at that particular point of time. Three persons have come initially and thereafter one person came in the Bolero vehicle and he has claimed that he is the Inspector of Police, SOT. It is also mentioned that when they have tried to kidnap accused No. 1, he has shouted and others, who were present there, have rescued him. They have snatched the mobile phone. 14. According to the prosecution, accused No. 1 obstructed the complainant from discharging his duties while he was making enquiry with regard to the ownership of Compressor Tractors. They have assaulted on the police constables and also damaged the Bolero vehicle. 15. They have snatched the mobile phone. 14. According to the prosecution, accused No. 1 obstructed the complainant from discharging his duties while he was making enquiry with regard to the ownership of Compressor Tractors. They have assaulted on the police constables and also damaged the Bolero vehicle. 15. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer including the ownership of the venture, vehicles and the damage of the vehicle, public property. 16. By referring to the proceedings dated 18.05.2019 of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, letter dated 27.06.2019 of the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, letter dated 09.08.2019 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ibhraimpatnam Division to the Tahsildar, inspector report dated 22.06.2019 and letter dated 2.12.2020 of the RDO to District Collector, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that accused No. 1 is nothing to do with the land in Survey No. 14/1, 14/2A, 14/3, 14/4, 14/5 (A to E), admeasuring Acs. 5.00 of Nerrepally village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and the said land belongs to Mrs. Palvai Vajramma. She has executed a registered GPA in favour of Mr. Akula Yadagiri, who looks after the said land. The said Akula Yadagiri through M/s. Sri Lakshmi Bhavani Enterprises has applied for No Objection for blasting works in the said land. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also contend that the said land is 1½ kms. away from the habitation of Nerrepally village and there are no mosque, temple and church, towns and high-tension wires. 17. The above stated proceedings would show that Mrs. Vajramma has executed a registered GPA vide document No. 21322 of 2018 dated 28.09.2018 by appointing Mr. Akula Yadagiri as a GPA Holder in respect of subject land. He has applied for NOC for blasting works in the above said land on behalf of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Bhavani Enterprises. Thus, whether there is any nexus between accused No. 1, other accused and the said M/s. Sri Lakshmi Bhavani Enterprises is again a factual aspect to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. 18. It is also trite to note that in the complaint dated 09.10.2020 accused No. 1 did not mention that he is not the owner of the said venture. On the other hand, he has stated that he was present along with accused Nos. 18. It is also trite to note that in the complaint dated 09.10.2020 accused No. 1 did not mention that he is not the owner of the said venture. On the other hand, he has stated that he was present along with accused Nos. 2 and 7 on 09.10.2020 at 1.15 p.m. Thus, it is a matter to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. 19. The Apex Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia (2020) 2 SCC 118 categorically held that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is wide amplitude. The grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the Court and it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The Court which is considering a bail application has to consider the nature of offence which is one of the basic considerations to grant the bail. The Apex Court has also referred to the factors to be considered while exercising power to grant bail laid down by it in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [ (2002) 3 SCC 598 ] Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [ (2010) 14 SCC 496 ] and other judgments. One of the factors are that the Court has to consider the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered and prima facie satisfaction that the accused have committed the offence. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of that case. The Court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on case by case basis. It is not relevant for the Court which is dealing with an application for bail at that stage to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. 20. The Apex Court has also considered the principle laid down by it in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [ (2004) 7 SCC 528 ] wherein it was held that at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken and there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted. 21. 21. It is also relevant to note that in a recent judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452 , the Apex Court held as follows: "while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 22. According to the petitioners, Mr. Akula Yadagiri representing M/s. Sri Lakshmi Bhavani Enterprises has applied for NOC to carry out blasting works in his land admeasuring Acs. 5.00 in Survey No. 14 of Nerrapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, and the same is pending consideration before the Authorities concerned. Thus, there is no permission to conduct blasting in the subject land. Even then, they are trying to conduct blasting activities in the subject land without permission. The police have also seized one Detonator, connecting wire and Compressor Tractor from the scene of offence. There are several factual aspects to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The other contentions raised by the petitioners that the complainant is not having jurisdiction, the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners including the legal bar under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act etc. are the matters to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 23. The other contentions raised by the petitioners that the complainant is not having jurisdiction, the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners including the legal bar under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act etc. are the matters to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 23. In view of the above said law laid down by the Apex Court including the guidelines in the above said judgments, coming to the facts of the case on hand, there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer including the following aspects: (a) Whether accused No. 1 is owner of venture/land in dispute or not (b) Nexus between M/s. Sri Lakshmi Bhavani Enterprises, Mr. Akula Yadagiri and Mrs. Palvai Vajramma and the accused, more particularly accused No. 1 (c) The delay in lodging the complaint (d) Whether the contents of the complaint are lacking the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused (e) Whether there is any recovery of property with specific reference to the contents of remand report where it was specifically mentioned that the police have seized one detonator, connecting wire, compressor tractor from the scene of offence on conducting seizure panchanama (f) Whether there is any damage to the public property including damage to Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. TS 09PA 4493 (g) Whether the accused have assaulted the police constables and beat them with hands on recording their statements (h) Ownership of the compressor tractors including compressing tractor bearing registration No. AP 26AM 1217 (i) Whether the said venture is near to habitation or not and (j) Whether the accused have valid permission to conduct blasting activities at the subject land with specific reference to the proceedings issued by the Revenue Officials as per which the application for conducting blasting activities is pending. 24. Admittedly, investigation is pending. In Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar AIR 2019 SC 847 , the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the powers of High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings held that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to fine out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided only in the trial Court. This is an application seeking anticipatory bail. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 25. In Kamlesh1, the High Court rejected the application for bail only on the ground that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in FIR. The Apex Court held that the High Court ought to have considered the bail application on merits. But, in the present case the facts are different and it is only an anticipatory bail that is under consideration before this Court. 26. In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (2016) 1 SCC 152 , the order of cancellation of anticipatory bail was under challenge. The offence was under Section - 376 of IPC. The Apex Court set out certain principles for granting bail including the guideline that the Court dealing with bail application has to consider the gravity of the facts, evaluation of facts etc. As stated above, in the present case also, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature and the investigation is pending. 27. In Rashmi Chopra (2020) 1 SCC (Crl.) 286 the Apex Court discussed about the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and therefore the principle laid down therein is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the present applications are for grant of anticipatory bail. 28. In Ankush Maruti Shinde (2020) 1 SCC (Crl.) 315, the Apex Court discussed about the criminal trial, investigation, both impartial and truthful and laid down certain principles. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case. 29. In D.K. Basu 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 248 (SC), the Apex Court laid down guidelines/requirements of arrest and preventive measures. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 30. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case. 29. In D.K. Basu 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 248 (SC), the Apex Court laid down guidelines/requirements of arrest and preventive measures. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 30. In A. Omkar 1997 (1) ALT (Crl.) 63 (DB), a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad discussed about the power of the Investigating Officer without registration of crime. Therefore, the principle laid down therein is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 31. In P.B. Sourabhan 2016 SCC OnLine SC 217 , the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the powers of Director General of Police to appoint a Superior Police Officer to investigate a crime registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Officer, and in the said case two crimes were registered with regard to matrimonial disputes between the parties and held that Section - 36 of Cr.P.C. empowers Police Officer superior in rank to an Officer in-charge of a Police Station to exercise the same power as that of an Officer in-charge of a Police Station in so far as the territorial/local area within the jurisdiction of such Superior Police Officer is concerned. Section - 36 of Cr.P.C. does not fetter the jurisdiction of the Police Chief to pass such an order based on his satisfaction. In the present case also, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Commissioner of Police has constituted special teams by invoking power under Section - 36 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the principle laid down therein is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 32. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners herein have filed Crl. P. No. 5036 of 2020 under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 256 of 2020, and this Court vide order dated 30.11.2020 dismissed the said petition on the ground that there are specific allegations/overt acts against the petitioners and also on the ground that there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. 33. In view of the above said legal position, as discussed supra, there are specific allegations and overt acts against the petitioners herein. 33. In view of the above said legal position, as discussed supra, there are specific allegations and overt acts against the petitioners herein. There are serious allegations of assaulting and beating the police constables, deterring the complainant and his staff from discharging their official duties, damaging the public property viz., Bolero vehicle and also carrying on blasting activities illegally by using explosive substances. The contents of complaint dated 09.10.2020 would prima facie make out the allegations and also the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners herein. Investigation is still pending. The petitioners are absconding. Their custodial interrogation may be required as part of investigation in view of the seriousness of the allegations including purchase of explosive substances. 34. Considering the above said aspects and also the nature of offences alleged to have committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 35. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.