JUDGMENT Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking regular bail, by the petitioner in connection with crime Nos. 138, 139, 140 and 141 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District. 2. The petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused in all four crimes. 3. Crime No. 138 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(b) 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 506 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act. 4. Crime No. 139 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324, 435, 120(B), 109, 201 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act. 5. Crime No. 140 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B), 341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 336, 435, 188, 506 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act, 1861. 6. Crime No. 141 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 436, 435, 188, 120(B), 353, 201 and 109 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 32 of Police Act. 7. The above crimes were registered basing on the reports lodged by Subrahmanyam Vasamsetti, Home Guard-268; Koppisetti Venkata Ganesh, VRO; Naga Venkata Ratna Giri Babu, Driver of RTC Bus and Ponnada Venkata Narayana Kumar cousin of Ponnada Venkata Satish, MLA of Mummidhivaram; respectively, with regard to the incident that took place on 24.05.2022 pursuant to the notification issued by the Government by changing the name of Konaseema District as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 8. The facts of above crime are inter-linked. Therefore, they are considered and decided by this common order. The facts of the case in brief are: 9. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 8. The facts of above crime are inter-linked. Therefore, they are considered and decided by this common order. The facts of the case in brief are: 9. On 24.05.2022 at about 4:00 P.M., on a call given by JAC of Konaseema Sadhana Committee, huge number of people gathered together for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema District by violating the proceedings issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the Police Act. The mob started rally at Kalasam Centre, Amalapuram Town and proceeded to Clock Tower Centre and in the meanwhile various groups of public came from four corners to the clock tower centre and formed into a huge mob. 10. Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to Collectorate when the Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and burnt BVC collage bus which was used as transport vehicle for the Police. 11. Further when Police tried to control the mob at Collectorate, the mob pelted stones on Police personnel due to which some of the Police sustained injuries, damaged the glasses of Collectorate Office and Ambedkar Bhavan. 12. Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthena), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses. 13. The mob further moved towards the house of MLA and pelted stoned on the house due to which glasses were damage. When cousin of MLA tried to pacify the matter and while he was taking video of the situation, the mob poured petrol on him, but he managed to escape. Then the mob entered into the house of MLA, set fire to the motorcycles and entire furniture in the house including house. 14. The petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused in the above crimes basing on the complaints lodged by respective persons referred to supra. 15. Heard Sri B.V. Subrahmanyeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He submits that the name of the petitioner does not reflect in any of the FIRs and only basing on the confession of other accused, petitioner is arrayed as accused. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He submits that the name of the petitioner does not reflect in any of the FIRs and only basing on the confession of other accused, petitioner is arrayed as accused. He submits that petitioner is falsely implicated for extraneous consideration and to harass him. He also would submit that the offences alleged would not attract against the petitioner since he neither participated in agitation nor conspired with any other person in commission of the offence. He also submitted that the petitioner never involved in any criminal activities. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 17. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the other accused confessed about the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime, as such he is shown as accused in the above crimes. He submits that investigation is pending and offences are serious in nature and hence petitioner is not entitled to grant bail. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 312 laid the following principles which are to be considered while granting bail. i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.' 19. The record reveals that pursuant to notification issued by the Government about change of name of Konaseema District as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District a call was given by JAC Konaseema District Sadhana Samithi for submission of representations. In pursuance of the same thousands of people gathered at Clock Tower Centre and proceeded to Collectorate Office. When Police tried to prevent them from entering the premises said mob pelted stones on the Police and caused injuries to them. Further the mob also damaged Collectorate Office as well as Ambedkar Building and also lit fire to buses. 20. As can be seen from the entire record prosecution identified accused basing on CC TV footage, social media videos and photos. Further except mentioning the names of accused in FIR, no specific overt acts were attributed against the petitioner or any other accused. 21. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to attract Sections 146 and 147 of IPC, there should unlawful assembly. For better appreciation it is appropriate to extract Sections 141, 146 and 147 of IPC. 141. Further except mentioning the names of accused in FIR, no specific overt acts were attributed against the petitioner or any other accused. 21. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to attract Sections 146 and 147 of IPC, there should unlawful assembly. For better appreciation it is appropriate to extract Sections 141, 146 and 147 of IPC. 141. Unlawful assembly.--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an 'unlawful assembly', if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-- (First) -- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1[the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (Second) -- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (Third) -- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (Fourth) -- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (Fifth) -- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.--An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. 146. Rioting.--Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. 147. Punishment for rioting.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 22. Thus, there must be unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of IPC for attracting offences under Sections 146 and 147 of IPC. In the present case nothing is forthcoming from the record to show that all the people in the mob had a common intention of committing an offence. 23. 22. Thus, there must be unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of IPC for attracting offences under Sections 146 and 147 of IPC. In the present case nothing is forthcoming from the record to show that all the people in the mob had a common intention of committing an offence. 23. The other contention raised by learned Public Prosecutor is regarding applicability of Section 307 of IPC. Section 307 of IPC reads thus: 307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.-- 2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] 24. In the present case, admittedly the mob consists of more than 1000 people. None of the complaints indicate about common intention or common object of committing an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Specific overt acts were not attributed against the petitioner. 25. It is also evident from the record that the mob gathered for submitting their representations at Collectorate office, but not with an intention of committing any offence and admittedly the mob was not armed with weapons. 26. A perusal of the complaints lodged by respective complainants, shows that the name of petitioner is not reflected. Even as per the prosecution case, basing on confession made by other accused regarding the role of petitioner, petitioner was arrayed as accused in the above crimes. 27. In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 8 SCC 130 , while dealing with the confessional statements made by the accused persons before a police officer, the Supreme Court held as under: '7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started.' 28. Considering the facts of this case, since the name of the petitioner doesn't find place in compliant, no specific overt act was attributed against the petitioner and extra judicial confession is weak piece of evidence and as this Court granted bail to other accused, who stands on same footing, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by duly taking the apprehensions made by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration with the following conditions: i) The petitioner/accused in crime Nos. 138, 139, 140 and 141 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District shall be released on bail in connection with said crimes on condition of executing self bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, in each crime to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 9:00 am to 6:00 pm for a period of eight weeks or till the date of filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier. iii) Petitioner shall cooperate with the police in investigation of the above crimes; iv) The petitioner shall not go beyond the Region of Amalapuram Town Police Station, without the permission of the concerned SHO/or the learned Trial Court after commencement of trial; v) Petitioner shall neither influence the witnesses nor tamper the evidence. iii) Petitioner shall cooperate with the police in investigation of the above crimes; iv) The petitioner shall not go beyond the Region of Amalapuram Town Police Station, without the permission of the concerned SHO/or the learned Trial Court after commencement of trial; v) Petitioner shall neither influence the witnesses nor tamper the evidence. It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.