Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 556 (AP)

K. Jairam Naidu v. State

2024-05-09

T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

body2024
ORDER T Mallikarjuna Rao, J. - This Criminal Petition under Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/A.1, seeking regular bail in Cr.No.144 of 2024 of Anantapuram I Town Police Station, Anantapuram District. 2. The above crime was registered against the Petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that this is a case of assault on ST caste person by restraining wrongfully and attempted to murder that occurred on 30.04.2004 at about 04.30 PM at R.K.Colony, Ananthapuramu and reported on 30.04.2024 at 07.45 pm. According to the Prosecution, the Complainant was riding a motorcycle with his friend Ravi, en route to attend an election campaign event for Sri Anantha Venkata Rami Reddy, a candidate contesting the Ananthapuramu urban Assembly Constituency on behalf of YSRCP at Suseel Reddy colony. At that time, A.1 and his 13 followers, associated with TDP, allegedly restrained the victim, subjected him to castebased verbal abuse, and attacked him with sticks and stones, with apparent intent to kill him. Additionally, women accused purportedly sprayed chili powder into the victim's eyes and indiscriminately assaulted him. Upon hearing the Complainant's cries, residents of the colony intervened and rescued him. As a result of the assault, the Complainant suffered bleeding injuries to his head, hands, and legs. Furthermore, the accused have also targeted Ravi as well, spraying chili powder on him, pushing him down, and beating him. Subsequently, the Complainant was transferred to GGH, Ananthapuramu for medical treatment. 4. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner argues that political differences between candidates supported by the YSRCP and TDP have fueled the situation. It is highlighted that the Petitioner, formerly aligned with the ruling party, has recently switched allegiance to the TDP and assumed the role of State Secretary within the party. The contention further suggests that the Defacto Complainant's accusation is unfounded, motivated solely by a desire to prevent the Petitioner from engaging in election campaigning and serving as an election agent for the TDP's candidate 5. In contrast, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor asserts that the investigation remains incomplete and expresses concern that releasing the accused could impede the investigative process 6. I have heard both sides. In contrast, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor asserts that the investigation remains incomplete and expresses concern that releasing the accused could impede the investigative process 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the report. 7. As seen from the material on record, it is undisputed that the Petitioner recently shifted allegiance to the TDP. Furthermore, it is evident that the Defacto Complainant aligns with the YSRCP, and his spouse is actively involved with the party. Political tensions between the followers of the YSRCP and the Petitioner, along with his supporters, are apparent from the records. 8. The Prosecution alleges that, on 30.04.2024, while a member of the YSRCP and the Petitioner were traveling on a motorcycle, they were obstructed by the Accused persons and others, purportedly motivated by political animosity. However, it is crucial to note that there is no assertion from the Prosecution that the Petitioner directly participated in the alleged attack against the Defacto Complainant and others. The Prosecution's contention that the Petitioner instigated the other accused individuals and is responsible for the attack. 9. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner contends that, according to the Prosecution's narrative, the alleged incident occurred on 30.04.2024 at 04:30 PM. On that very day, in accordance with the compulsory provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Superintendent of Police appointed Sri M.Ananthappa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, as the investigating officer. The investigating promptly initiated the investigation and examined the witnesses LWs.1 to 7, and recorded their statements. Based on the statements LW.2 to 7, investigating officer came to the conclusion about the involvement of A.15 to A.18 in the crime, subsequently included their names in the investigation. Furthermore, investigating officer obtained caste certificates of A.1 to A.4, A.6, and A.7, and proceeded to effectuate the arrests of A.1 to A.4, A.6, A.7, A.16 to A.18 at 12:45 hours. However, the record does not reflect any substantial efforts by the investigating officer beyond the recording of statements of the Defacto Complainant and their associates to solicit the perspectives of the independent witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused persons. 10. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner asserts that the conduct of the investigation suggests a predisposition on the part of the investigating officer to swiftly incarcerate the Petitioner and other accused. 10. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner asserts that the conduct of the investigation suggests a predisposition on the part of the investigating officer to swiftly incarcerate the Petitioner and other accused. However, this Court is disinclined to deduce from these actions alone that the case was unjustly fabricated against the Petitioner and his associates. 11. The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the Defacto Complainant and others sustained injuries, yet there is no assertion from the Prosecution that the Petitioner directly caused such injuries. However, given the injuries sustained, there does not exist a potential danger to the affected individuals. It is crucial to note that the Petitioner's involvement in prior criminal activities cannot serve as a ground for denying bail. While it appears that a crime was registered in 2024, other offences were reported between 2012 and 2020. The Petitioner contends that this case was fabricated to impede his participation in the upcoming elections, a possibility heightened by ongoing disputes between the Defacto Complainant's and Petitioner's factions. 12. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor suggests a potential for clashes between the two groups in the village. In light of this, the Court considers it appropriate to issue directives aimed at mitigating such conflicts. 13. At this stage, the allegations against the Petitioner are subject to the trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until his guilt or innocence is determined. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the Prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the Prosecution shows that the Accused tried for such tampering/intimidation.14. As previously noted, the investigating officer conducted the majority of the investigation on the same day the crime was registered. Notably, the Prosecution does not contend that the petitioner's custody is necessary to facilitate further investigation. 15. The Petitioners' continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pretrial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pretrial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have got permanent abode, there is no possibility of fleeing from justice. 16. Given the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the Petitioner/A.1 under the following conditions: (i) Petitioner/A.1 is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu. (ii) Petitioner is prohibited from visiting the residential area or community where the Defacto Complainant resides. (iii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tampering with the evidence. (iv) Respondent/State collects any material during the period the Petitioner is on bail that suggests he is influencing the witnesses or has tried to intimidate them, the Prosecution/Respondent would be within its right to move an application before this Court for cancellation of his bail. (v) The application, if any, for cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional Court. 17. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the case's merits, and the trial will proceed independently of the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.