JUDGMENT Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 438 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking pre-arrest bail, by the petitioners/Accused in the Crime No. 139 of 2022 dated 24.05.2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 232 & 249 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324, 435 r/w. 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.05.2022 on a call given by JAC of Konaseema Sadhana Committee, huge number of people gathered for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema District, by violating the order 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. Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to Collectorate, when Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and also burnt BVC college bus which was used as transport vehicle for Police. Further, when the 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. Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthenna), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses. The mob further moved towards the house of Hon'ble Minister. When the mob shouted and beat police persons, AR constable fired rounds in air, but agitators attacked complainant and his staff; attacked staff of the Hon'ble Minister, caused damage to the furniture and set fire to the house of the Minister and later proceeded to the house of local MLA. Basing on the complaint lodged by the Village Revenue Officer of the 30th Ward, Amalapuram town crime No. 139 of 2022 was registered. 3. Heard Sri. Ch.S.V. Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Basing on the complaint lodged by the Village Revenue Officer of the 30th Ward, Amalapuram town crime No. 139 of 2022 was registered. 3. Heard Sri. Ch.S.V. Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that initially the petitioners names were not figured in the complaint. Basing on the confession statements of the other accused, their names were arrayed as accused in this crime. It is also contended that the petitioners were shown as Accused No. 232 and 249 in the present case and were granted anticipatory bail in other crimes which are registered in connection with the same incident and sought to consider the present petition also on similar lines. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the involvement of the petitioners is evident from the photographs taken at the scene of offence and investigation is still pending. If at all this Court wants to consider the present bail petitions, in such case, he draw the attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kodungallu Film Society v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 713 wherein it is held as follows: C. Liability of person causing violence a) ....... b) ....... c) A person arrested for either committing or initiating, promoting, instigating or in any way causing to occur any act of violence which results in loss of life or damage to property may be granted conditional bail upon depositing the quantified loss caused due to such violence or furnishing security for such quantified loss. .....' Relying on the judgment cited supra, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, prayed this Court to impose some costs for the loss caused to the State. 6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor further 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 pre-arrest bail. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made on either side and perused the record. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. He submits that investigation is pending and offences are serious in nature and hence petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made on either side and perused the record. 8. 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. 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.' 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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, [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. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.-- [When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 Accused No. 223 regarding the role of petitioners, they were arrayed as accused in the above crime. 17. 16. 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 Accused No. 223 regarding the role of petitioners, they were arrayed as accused in the above crime. 17. 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 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.' 18. A perusal of the complaint discloses that initially, the petitioners' names were not reflected, but as per the confession statements of the other accused, the petitioners' names are reflected in the above crime 19. Considering the facts of this case, since the name of the petitioners doesn't find place in compliant, no specific overt act was attributed against the petitioners and as extra judicial confession is weak piece of evidence, this Court deems that it is a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 20. With regard to the contention of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, relying on the judgment cited supra, till today, there is no material to show that the petitioners have damaged any property. In view of the same, the decision relied on by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor cannot be made applicable at this stage and his request to impose costs cannot be considered. 21. In view of the same, the decision relied on by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor cannot be made applicable at this stage and his request to impose costs cannot be considered. 21. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and considering the submissions of both the learned Counsel and in similar matters this Court has granted pre-arrest bail, this Court feels it appropriate to consider granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners herein on the following conditions, by duly taking the apprehension raised by the Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration: (i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing self bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Amalapuram Town Police station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 139 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station; (ii) On such release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, Amalapuram Town Police Station once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 9.00 a.m. and 06.00 pm till filing of the charge sheet. (iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation. Further, the petitioners shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and any infraction of the same will be viewed seriously and bail automatically gets cancelled without any further order of this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.