ORDER : Since these Criminal Petitions are filed, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short, ‘CrPC’), by different accused in the crime viz. crime No.198 of 2022 of Macherla Town police station, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order. 2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 10262 of 2022 are A.2, A.4 and A.8 to A.24; the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.10307 of 2022 are A.5 and A.6, and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.10324 of 2022 are A.1, A.3 and A.7 respectively, in the aforesaid crime. 3. Basing on a statement dated 16.12.2022 given by the informant Challa Mohan, police registered the aforesaid crime against 24 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The allegations, in brief, are as follows. On 16.12.2022 at 6.00 PM, the informant and his friend Upputolla Srinivasa Rao were having tea at China Convent Centre. At that time, T.D.P. party people were coming from Ring Road side by raising slogans ‘Idemi Kharmara Babu’ by conducting a rally, and when some unknown persons threw stones on them, the accused and 100 others came to them as a mob and stated as to how dare to throw stones on them and who would come to their rescue if they kill them and they have been waiting for that opportunity. Saying so, by keeping in mind the previous petty disputes, they pounced on them. A.1, A.3, A.5 and A.6 provoked others to kill them, and all the accused together attacked the informant and Upputolla Srinivasa Rao with deadly weapons indiscriminately with an intention to kill them and beat with hands and legs. A.1 beat with a rod on the head of the informant and A.3 beat him with a stick, and they provoked other persons on which all others beat them indiscriminately and tried to kill them. They sustained bleeding injuries. A.7, saying that as to why they should be kept alive, threw a big stone on the chest of the informant. When Orsu Kishore and Thota Veeraiah came to their rescue, the said persons attacked them also and tried to kill them. At the intervention of passers-by and on raising cries, the said persons left the place stating that they would not leave them. 4. When Orsu Kishore and Thota Veeraiah came to their rescue, the said persons attacked them also and tried to kill them. At the intervention of passers-by and on raising cries, the said persons left the place stating that they would not leave them. 4. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the Criminal Petitions and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. 5. Learned senior counsel contended that number of persons have been roped into the crime with the aid of Section 149 IPC. He submitted that basing on the call given by Telugu Desam Party (TDP), the supporters of the party conducted an activity at Macherla town for educating the people against ill-deeds and undemocratic activities committed by the present administration. He further submitted that on a perusal of the complaint goes to show that sympathizers of TDP were attacked in order to prevent them from conducting the campaign, and as a part of retaliated measure, the alleged incident is said to have taken place. He submits that in pursuance of the attack, the petitioners herein filed another report as against the defacto complainant and others, which was registered as a case in crime No.199 of 2022 of Macherla Town police station for the offences punishable under Sections 149, 147, 148, 448, 427, 436, 323 read with 149 IPC. Learned senior counsel further submits that even accepting the entire allegations in the present complaint to be true, prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC would not attract for the reason that there is absolutely no intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause death of the informant, and that the incident is said to have taken place in a spur of moment, but the police, with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioners of availing the right under Section 41A CrPC, mentioned the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in the First Information Report. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petitions and contended that it is not a case where anticipatory bail can be granted for the reason that the accused, in a pre-planned manner, had attacked the informant and 3 others resulting in receiving grievous injuries to them. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petitions and contended that it is not a case where anticipatory bail can be granted for the reason that the accused, in a pre-planned manner, had attacked the informant and 3 others resulting in receiving grievous injuries to them. He further submitted that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC would prima facie attract in the case on hand. 7. Perused the record. 8. A perusal of the report goes to show that the informant stated that A.1 and other accused, along with 100 persons, went to him and abused him and others by stating that they threw stones on them and if they kill the informant and others, who would come to their rescue. It is further alleged that saying so, keeping in mind petty quarrels that took place on earlier instances between them, they attacked the informant and others. A reading of the report goes to show that all of them attacked the informant and others with a view to cause death of the informant. It is further alleged that some of them beat with deadly weapons and some others beat with hands and legs. If really all the accused and 100 others attacked the informant, it is quite improbable that the informant and 3 others received only 4 injuries each. There is any amount of ambiguity with regard to the acts attributed to the petitioners herein on the informant and others, and the prosecution has not come out with the exact genesis of the attack. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor produced copies of Section 161 CrPC statements of witnesses and photographs. A perusal of the photographs goes to show that A.3 was hitting the injured persons with a stick on his leg and A.7 was holding a heavy stone intending to throw the same on the injured. Admittedly, the alleged incident had taken place where both the groups alleged to have clashed with each other. There were attack and counter attacks. A counter case in crime No.199 of 2022 has also been registered. 10. Learned senior counsel relied upon a decision in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 33, 35 and 41) “33. There were attack and counter attacks. A counter case in crime No.199 of 2022 has also been registered. 10. Learned senior counsel relied upon a decision in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 33, 35 and 41) “33. We would, therefore, prefer to leave the High Court and the Court of Session to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion which, by their long training and experience, they are ideally suited to do. The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years, than by divesting them of their discretion which the legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application. It is customary, almost chronic, to take a statute as one finds it on the ground that, after all, “the legislature in its wisdom” has thought it fit to use a particular expression. A convention may usefully grow whereby the High Court and the Court of Session may be trusted to exercise their discretionary powers in their wisdom, especially when the discretion is entrusted to their care by the legislature in its wisdom. If they err, they are liable to be corrected. 35. Section 438(1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has “reason to believe” that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression “reason to believe” shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere ‘fear’ is not ‘belief”, for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. Section 438(1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individuals liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely. 41. Apart from the fact that the very language of the statute compels this construction, there is an important principle involved in the insistence that facts, on the basis of which a direction under Section 438(1) is sought, must be clear and specific, not vague and general. It is only by the observance of that principle that a possible conflict between the right of an individual to his liberty and the right of the police to investigate into crimes reported to them can be avoided. A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. Therefore, the court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should not be exercised in a vacuum.” He also relied on a decision in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 52.2, 52.3, 52.4, 52.6 and 52.7) “52.2. The power should not be exercised in a vacuum.” He also relied on a decision in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 52.2, 52.3, 52.4, 52.6 and 52.7) “52.2. Grant of an order under Section 438(1) does not per se hamper investigation of an offence; Sections 438(1)(i) and (ii) enjoin that an accused/applicant should cooperate with investigation. Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] also stated that courts can fashion appropriate conditions governing bail, as well. One condition can be that if the police makes out a case of likely recovery of objects or discovery of facts under Section 27 (of the Evidence Act, 1872), the accused may be taken into custody. Given that there is no formal method prescribed by Section 46 of the Code if recovery is made during a statement (to the police) and pursuant to the accused volunteering the fact, it would be a case of recovery during “deemed arrest”. (Para 19 of Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] ). 52.3. The accused is not obliged to make out a special case for grant of anticipatory bail; reading an otherwise wide power would fetter the court's discretion. Whenever an application (for relief under Section 438) is moved, discretion has to be always exercised judiciously, and with caution, having regard to the facts of every case. (Para 21, Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] ) 52.4. While the power of granting anticipatory bail is not ordinary, at the same time, its use is not confined to exceptional cases. (Para 22, Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] ) 52.6. Overgenerous introduction (or reading into) of constraints on the power to grant anticipatory bail would render it constitutionally vulnerable. Since fair procedure is part of Article 21, the court should not throw the provision (i.e. Section 438) open to challenge “by reading words in it which are not to be found therein”. (Para 26) 52.7. There is no “inexorable rule” that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the applicant is the target of mala fides. Since fair procedure is part of Article 21, the court should not throw the provision (i.e. Section 438) open to challenge “by reading words in it which are not to be found therein”. (Para 26) 52.7. There is no “inexorable rule” that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the applicant is the target of mala fides. There are several relevant considerations to be factored in, by the court, while considering whether to grant or refuse anticipatory bail. Nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the accused's presence not being secured during trial; a reasonable apprehension that the witnesses might be tampered with, and “the larger interests of the public or the State” are some of the considerations. A person seeking relief (of anticipatory bail) continues to be a man presumed to be innocent. (Para 31, Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] )” Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, the learned senior counsel contended that no specific overt-acts are attributed as against the petitioners, except petitioners/A.3 and A.7. 11. Admittedly, in the First Information Report, 24 persons are figured as accused. It is stated in the statement of the informant that apart from them, 100 other member were also present and all attacked him and others. If such is the situation, the victims would have received multiple injuries and the situation would have been still worse. 12. In respect of petitioner/A.7, the photographs produced by the learned Public Prosecutor prima facie depict that he was holding a stone intending to throw on the victim. Irrespective of whether the stone had hit the victim or not, the fact that the petitioner/A.7 holding the big stone would, by itself, shows his intention to cause a severe injury to the victim. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner/A.7. 13. As far as petitioner/A.3 is concerned, he is alleged to have beat with a stick on the legs of the injured, which is a non-vital part of the body. At this stage, it is difficult to say whether the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC would attract against him or not. This needs further examination by the investigating agency. 13. As far as petitioner/A.3 is concerned, he is alleged to have beat with a stick on the legs of the injured, which is a non-vital part of the body. At this stage, it is difficult to say whether the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC would attract against him or not. This needs further examination by the investigating agency. Hence, his case can be considered for grant of anticipatory bail, however, by imposing certain conditions. 14. In respect of other petitioners, going by the First Information Report, omnibus accusation has been made as against all the accused that they attacked the informant and 3 others. The informant stated in his statement that A.1 had hit with an iron rod on his head. A perusal of the wound certificate of the informant produced by the learned Public Prosecutor would go to show that he had FIB fracture; abrasion and swelling over the lower chest and abdomen; swelling over the right knee; contusions over thighs and lower back and lacerated would over the scalp. According to the Doctor, injury No.1 is grievous in nature. The corresponding injury to the overt-act as against A.1 is not grievous in nature. Petitioner/A.1 is an Ex.MLA. There cannot be any flight risk as against him. He has got fixed abode and hence the question of absconding does not arise. In respect of other petitioners also, the question of absconding would not arise since all of them got fixed abode at their respective places. In view of the same, their cases can be considered for grant of anticipatory bail, however by imposing certain conditions. 15. Accordingly, this Court holds that except petitioner/A.7, all other petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. 16. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 10262 of 2022 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.10307 of 2022 and the petitioners 1 and 2 in Criminal Petition No.10324 of 2022, shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in the aforesaid crime, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officials. The said petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer of police station concerned, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet. The said petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer of police station concerned, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet. The said petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required and that they shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the witnesses. The said petitioners shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten the witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation. It is made clear that the said petitioners shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. 17. Accordingly, Criminal Petition Nos. 10262 of 2022 and 10307 of 2022 are allowed. Criminal Petition No.10324 of 2022 is partly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.