ORDER : V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. 1. This criminal petition under sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioners/A34, A35, A43 and A56 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.650 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station of Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 506, 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109, 120B, 149 of the IPC. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/state and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State. 3. In every case of a crime, when the criminal justice machinery is put into motion, there emerge competing claims. State prays for the safety of its citizens and the citizens pray for their liberty from the inappropriate handling of investigation by the police officers. Therefore, there is insistence for a matured jurisprudence of bail which is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. The rival contentions advanced in this bail application fall for assessment in the context of the following facts available from the record. 4. There are two prominent recognized political parties in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The crime incident in this case took place on 19.10.2021. By then, the YSR Congress Party was in power. The scene of offence is Andhra Pradesh State’s TDP office situate along NH6 Highway road, Athmakuru Panchayat, Mangalagiri Mandal. TDP was in the opposition when this incident occurred on 19.10.2021. FIR No.650 of 2021 was registered on the date of incident/19.10.2021. The incident allegedly occurred at about 5.30 pm in the evening. There were about five injured. The statement of one of the injured persons was recorded at about 9.00 pm in Manipal hospital. Acting upon that statement, FIR was registered at about 11.00 pm. The FIR was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 506 read with 149 IPC. Police embarked upon the investigation. They identified several accused. In terms of sections 41 and 41A CrPC, notices were issued as the offences for which the FIR was registered were punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years. It seems the statements of about eight witnesses were recorded during that phase of investigation. There was a lull in the investigation process. Years passed by. Democratic elections took place. In terms of sections 41 and 41A CrPC, notices were issued as the offences for which the FIR was registered were punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years. It seems the statements of about eight witnesses were recorded during that phase of investigation. There was a lull in the investigation process. Years passed by. Democratic elections took place. The party in the opposition when this offence was committed won the mandate of the people and the party holding the power by the time of this offence is now in opposition. 5. Though the offence took place way back in the year 2021 and though about three years elapsed, the investigation did not conclude. Over a period, transfers took place for public servants and the same is with the police also. New investigating officer had taken charge of his police station. Law and call of duty ordain every public servant to complete the lawful work pending as well as the present. That sequence of natural events brought swiftness in the investigation of this crime. Thereafter, there is the next phase of investigation. In this phase, some more witnesses were examined. Electronic evidence was collected and the investigating officer on verifying the medical records and all other materials he collected had arrived at an opinion that the facts do indicate to him the operation of sections 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109, 120B IPC. On 03.07.2023, he had filed a memo before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mangalagiri informing the court that the case has to be considered for these penal provisions also. 6. As per the case diary, there is one person by name Sri Kommareddy Pattabhi. He made certain statements on 19.10.2021 against the then Chief Minister of the State. Record does not bear what exactly were those statements. However, record indicates that the statements of the said individual were considered derogatory by the then ruling party leaders and followers. It is in that regard, the political cadre belonged to Guntur and Vijayawada joined together and hatched a plan and by virtue of that plan they wanted to eliminate the said individual Sri Kommareddy Pattabhi. It is then, the present crime incident occurred. As per the initial reports about 70 persons belonging to YSRCP party came in cars and other vehicles and they were possessed of iron rods, hammers, hockey sticks etc. It is then, the present crime incident occurred. As per the initial reports about 70 persons belonging to YSRCP party came in cars and other vehicles and they were possessed of iron rods, hammers, hockey sticks etc. They reached the TDP state office and forcibly pushed aside the security guard and forcibly entered the front office and demolished the furniture. It is mentioned that several TDP workers were there in the building at that time. A media reporter was also said to be present there. This mob of people attacked and caused injuries to five persons. Investigation also showed that the mob of people were hailing their leader and were shouting to kill Mr. Pattabhi. It is clear from the record that Mr. Pattabhi was not traced by them. However, the mob did not relent, and they damaged 11 cars available within the precincts. There was theft of one mobile phone and a laptop. 7. The de facto complainant, who was one among the five injured, in his initial statement made to the police which became FIR mentioned that this mob of people beat him and others and he suffered bleeding injuries and they caught hold of his throat, pressed it hard and thereby suffocated him and with the weapons they hit on his nose and forehead which caused bleeding injuries to him. He fell Unconscious. He mentioned in his information that the mob that attacked him intended to kill him and attempted to kill him. Everyone who came for rescue was beaten up. In the first phase of investigation, his injuries were stated to be simple in nature. Investigation record indicates the four other injured were treated as out-patients. The de facto complainant was admitted into hospital and was treated as an in-patient. Case diary further shows that this de facto complaint who was beaten on his forehead and nose suffered Fracture Bony Nasal Septum which is stated to be grievous in nature and it is grievous hurt. 8. This second phase of investigation included scrutiny of CCTV footage, scrutiny of social media as available on the internet and elsewhere. What was seen therein was reduced into writing with reference to persons seen through them and timings at which such sighting was made. Case dairy produced in this case shows the presence of these petitioners at the scene of offence. 9. What was seen therein was reduced into writing with reference to persons seen through them and timings at which such sighting was made. Case dairy produced in this case shows the presence of these petitioners at the scene of offence. 9. Record discloses that the investigation has been in progress. Some accused were arrested. Some accused are yet to be arrested. Some accused are stated to be absconding. 10. It was on 03.07.2024 at about 3.00 am in the morning, the investigation team found five accused including these petitioners and on seeing the police, they attempted to flee away but they were caught. After being caught, they were interrogated, and they allegedly confessed their complicity. They were duly produced before the learned Sessions Judge who remanded them to judicial custody. These petitioners along with A40 filed various bail applications which were disposed of by a common order dated 15.07.2024 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur. An elaborate order was recorded. Finding that A40 was afflicted with paralysis in February 2024 though he was hale and healthy at the time of crime incident, the learned Sessions Judge found it justified and granted his prayer for bail. The prayer of the present petitioners was dismissed. Thereafter these petitioners/ A34, A35, A43 and A56 filed this petition seeking regular bail. 11. In the bail petition, the following points are urged The contents of FIR are false, concocted, fabricated and invented only for the purpose of harassing these petitioners. New penal provisions were brought in only to satisfy the present ruling party. Only sympathizers of the TDP complained and there was no other complaint from anyone else. About an incident that took place in the year 2021 now at the intervention of busy bodies of TDP people mala fide accusations are made against the petitioners. These false cases are filed only because the petitioners are sympathizers of YSRCP. There is a clear political Vendetta and only because of that the alteration memo was not filed in advance but was filed along with remand report. The CCTV footage was made available to the police even at the beginning itself. The contentions of the petitioners were not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that between first phase and the second phase of investigation there elapsed 998 days. There are no specific overt acts against these petitioners. The CCTV footage was made available to the police even at the beginning itself. The contentions of the petitioners were not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that between first phase and the second phase of investigation there elapsed 998 days. There are no specific overt acts against these petitioners. These petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Record does not indicate they are flight risk. That there is no material collected so far indicate that they indulge in tampering with any evidence. It is submitted that for more than a month they have been in judicial custody and they deserve bail. Learner counsel for petitioners argued the principles of bail placing reliance on precedents. 1. Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 Their Lordships ruled that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken. However, there is a need to indicate in such orders, the reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed serious offences. The courts considering the bail matters are required to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment, the nature of evidence collected. Court Shall also consider the aspects concerning apprehensions of tempering with the evidence and apprehension of threat to the complainant. Court shall ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice. There shall be only a brief examination of the aspects involved in the case. The court has to see whether there is a prima facie case or not. It also has to see whether there is likelihood of the offence being repeated. If there is any material to show that the accused would use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail shall be refused. It has to assess whether the accused are of such character that their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses. 2. Learned counsel cited Jafarudheen V. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 Their Lordships held that the investigating officer is expected to kick start his investigation immediately after registration of a cognizable offence. An Inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution case but only to be considered by the court on the facts of each case. 2. Learned counsel cited Jafarudheen V. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 Their Lordships held that the investigating officer is expected to kick start his investigation immediately after registration of a cognizable offence. An Inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution case but only to be considered by the court on the facts of each case. There may be adequate circumstances for not examining a witness at an appropriate time. However, non-examination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the investigating officer. It only causes doubt in the mind of the court, which is required to be cleared. 13. Learned counsel also cited celebrated judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which dealt with aspects related to anticipatory bail and cited Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 . 14. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that A34 is a Corporator of Guntur Municipal Corporation and A35 is the Chairman of the District Library, Guntur. One would see from the case diary that A43 is a ward president of Nallacheruvu, Guntur. A56 runs a tire depo. Though, these identities are very much available with the petitioners, it is not known as to why in the cause title printed in the petition, they have not disclosed their hon’ble positions. Be that as it may. 15. As against those submissions, the fervent argument of learned senior counsel, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu is that in a democracy, recognized political parties owe a great deal of social responsibility. Crime incident is one that erupted without any provocation at the given point of time. On the purported ground of enragement because of some statements made by someone against their political leader, they did not take any legal action but they indulged in ransacking a party’s office and causing havoc creating any amount of panic among the people in the society. Investigation is a voyage of truth. People involved in such heinous acts should be dealt with sternly as otherwise discipline does not descend on public. Learned counsel submits that as the investigation is progressing and as the material collected so far has been revealing involvement of many and more and as now the evidence has been forthcoming, there is a need to continue the detention of these petitioners. Learned counsel submits that as the investigation is progressing and as the material collected so far has been revealing involvement of many and more and as now the evidence has been forthcoming, there is a need to continue the detention of these petitioners. Learned counsel urges this court to dismiss the prayer. 16. Having bestowed requisite attention on the facts and the principles and the material placed before me, the following aspects are to be stated: Record bears the fact that there are political overtones in this case. Court dealing with these cases exclude from its consideration any of such political activities. However, it has to be necessarily mentioned here that the facts do not allow anyone to think that there was no outsider’s interference with the statutory body called police in investigation of the cases. Therefore, the long lull in investigation by itself is not an appropriate measure to assess the facts on record. The use of the delayed record of statements of witnesses shall be left for consideration at appropriate stage. It is known in general that there are instances of witnesses being intimidated and statutory bodies shirk in discharging their legal responsibilities. The change of political party at the helm of affairs, as stated by petitioners, is the cause of implication of these petitioners after a long lapse of time. If that be the case, on the same touch stone it can possibly be said that it was earlier to that change the investigation commenced and kept dormant without finalization. May be that the assailants belonged to a particular political party, the investigating agency could not take courage to conclude its investigation. Therefore, at this stage of investigation, nothing more needs to be stated here on that aspect. 17. As the record that is made available indicates, one of the injured said that he was beaten by hammers and other articles on his forehead and on his nose and he suffered bleeding injuries. The medical record now placed indicates his nose was broken. The de facto complainant stated that his throat was pressed so hard and he suffocated and in his assessment, the assailants wanted to kill him. His assessment cannot be said to be incorrect as his statement indicates and his further treatment disclosed that he fell unconscious at the spot of offence. The de facto complainant stated that his throat was pressed so hard and he suffocated and in his assessment, the assailants wanted to kill him. His assessment cannot be said to be incorrect as his statement indicates and his further treatment disclosed that he fell unconscious at the spot of offence. Therefore, the act of the investigation officer in adding some more relevant provisions of law under sections 326 and 307 IPC cannot be said to be unjustified. When these facts were available in the FIR itself, the failure to incorporate appropriate penal provisions in the FIR can be viewed only as an inefficient way of handling crimes by the investigating police. Failure at one stage can certainly be rectified at a different stage. An investigating officer, finding from facts coming to thinking that certain more penal provisions are available for investigation, he is doing his duty and law has never commanded any procedure for intimation of the same to the learned Magistrate in any advance. The alteration memo is a popular way of seeing the facts but law never permits any change in the FIR itself. What is altered is the application of some more penal provisions to some of the existing penal provisions. They depend on what is gathered during investigation. FIR registered once is registered forever. Therefore, the objection taken by the learned counsel for petitioners that an alteration memo should precede the arrest of these petitioners is one that has to be rejected as such contention has no legal basis. 18. These petitioners have been in judicial custody since 03.07.2024. Thus, more than a month elapsed. A great deal of investigation took place thereafter. The social status claimed by these petitioners and the place of their permanent residence are never in dispute. Record does not indicate any facts on their part which could be said to impede purity of investigation. 19. Looking at the nature of the case and the time that has been spent so far by the investigating agency and the material collected by it, this court finds that any further continued detention does not seem necessary. Therefore, prayer is granted. 20. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. 19. Looking at the nature of the case and the time that has been spent so far by the investigating agency and the material collected by it, this court finds that any further continued detention does not seem necessary. Therefore, prayer is granted. 20. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. The petitioners herein/A34, A35, A43 and A56 shall be enlarged on bail on each executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-cum Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the investigating officer on 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM till filing of the charge sheet or ordered otherwise by the court. The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required. They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. They shall not indulge in similar acts of crime.