Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 517 (AP)

K. Madhava Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-05-03

T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

body2024
ORDER : (T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.) 1. The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner/accused herein to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 7 of 2024 of Nandigam Police Station, Srikakulam District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.01.2024 at about 19.00 hours, the incident occurred at Peddabanapuram Village, Nandigam Mandal, wherein the accused beat with a ring of his finger on the right eye of complainant, as a result of which the complainant got swollen injuries over right eye and that the accused also threatened to do away with the life of the complainant if he raises alarms, as the complainant was drying clothes on the combined wall between their houses. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated in the case and the petitioner is no way concerned with the commission of the offence. He further submits that a false case has been implicated against the petitioner/accused, as such prays to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confirms non-filing of charge sheet by the Police and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is at crucial stage. 6. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, I have carefully gone through the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the petitioner is an Ex-Army employee and he never involved in any illegal activities or criminal activities and there is a dispute between the family of the accused and defacto complainant regarding the boundary wall, as per the report lodged by the complainant also, the defacto complainant/injured can be considered as aggressor and the dispute is pending between both the parties as he highhandedly putting wet clothes on the wall. The petitioner did not use any weapon to cause injury to the defacto complainant, but unfortunately, as the petitioner was wearing hand ring at that time, the said ring allegedly contacted the right eye and caused injury to the defacto complainant/injured. The petitioner did not use any weapon to cause injury to the defacto complainant, but unfortunately, as the petitioner was wearing hand ring at that time, the said ring allegedly contacted the right eye and caused injury to the defacto complainant/injured. It is contended that the petitioner has no intention to cause any injury to the defacto complainant and he also submits that the ring cannot be considered as a deadly weapon and the ingredients of Section 326 of IPC will not attract to the facts of the present case and even if the case of the prosecution is assumed to be proved, a custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required to ascertain the nature of the weapon as the report is specific and clear that the ring worn by the petitioner caused injury to the defacto complainant. 8. The essential ingredients to attract Section 326 I.P.C. are: (1) voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; and (3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1956 of 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2008 reported the decision in the State of U.P. vs. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha ( 2000(7) SCC 249 ) held that there is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or for that matter a hurt. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be observed that dangerous weapon is used by the commission of the offence. According to his submission, the ingredients of Section 335 of IPC may attract to the facts of the case, if the contents of the complainant are assumed to be true and correct. 11. The ingredients of Section 335 of IPC reads as follows: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 12. It appears that the incident in question occurred all of a sudden without any premeditation or pre-plan. 12. It appears that the incident in question occurred all of a sudden without any premeditation or pre-plan. It seems that the petitioner has not permitted the defacto complainant to interfere with the enjoyment of joint wall, which is in dispute, by putting wet clothes on the wall. It seems that it might have given sudden provocation to the petitioner as per the facts narrated in the report. 13. To show that the petitioner served as an Army employee for a period of 20 years, he has filed I.D. Card. It is submitted that in the event of arrest, there may be possibility of withholding the pension by the competent authority. The truth or otherwise of the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties may be considered at the time of trial. When ascertained from the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he stated that the petitioner/accused has no previous antecedents. The petitioner/ accused has permanent abode at Peddabanapuram Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District, as such, there is no possibility of his fleeing away from justice and most of the investigation might have been completed by this time and release of the accused would not cause hampering of the investigation. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused with the following conditions. i. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the concerned Police Station within two weeks from the date of receipt of orders and the petitioner/accused shall be released on his furnishing personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. ii. On release, the Petitioner/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 AM and 01.00 PM for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. iii. The petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten the witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt to influence the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall cooperate with the investigation. iv. iii. The petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten the witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt to influence the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall cooperate with the investigation. iv. It is made clear that the petitioner/accused 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. However, nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.