Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Devineni Avinash vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 September, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4548, 4537, 4583, 4628, 4710, 4796,
4808, 5294, 5297, 5303, 5329, 5349, 5351 and 5354 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since all the criminal petitions arise in the same crime and
as they are heard together, they are now to be disposed of by this
common order.
2. These Criminal Petitions, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
(482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), are filed by
the petitioners/A.39, A.30, A.31, A.78, A.51, A.80, A.100, A.86,
A.85, A.88, A.94, A.95, A.81, A.83, A.92 and A.93 seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.650 of 2021 of
Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District. This case
pertains to offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452,
427, 323, 324, 506, 326, 307, 450 and 380 read with 109, 120B,
149 I.P.C.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsels, Sri Naidu Siva
Rama Krishna, Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, Sri Varun Byreddy, Sri
Y.Nagi Reddy, Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Pittu, Sri Gajjala Mallikarjuna
Reddy, Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, Sri
2
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
Deepak Mishra, Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, Sri Ravi Chinnapureddy, Sri
V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Sri B.Sesibhushan Rao and the learned
senior counsels, Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, Sri P.Veera
Reddy for petitioners. Heard arguments of Sri Sidharth Luthra,
the learned Senior Counsel for respondent-State and Sri Posani
Venkateswarlu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent-state as they were appointed by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh to argue the cases as per G.O.Rt.No.615, Home
(Courts.A) Department, dated 12.07.2024. Heard arguments of
the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
4. 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. The rival contentions advanced in this bail
application fall for assessment in the context of the following facts
available from the record.
5. 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 Yuvajana Shramika Rythu
3
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
Congress party (for short “YSRCP”) was in power. The scene of
offence is Andhra Pradesh State’s Telugu Desam Party (for short
“TDP”) central 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. On 19.10.2021
morning LW.27- Sri Kommareddy Pattabhi made some
statements against the then Chief Minister of the State. On the
occurrence of this incident, on 19.10.2021 at about 5:20 P.M. the
YSRCP leaders and their followers attacked the TDP party office
and the supporters and employees working in the office with
deadly weapons and damaged the furniture, doors, glass panels,
vehicles in the precincts of the office. 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 Cr.P.C., notices were issued on 20.10.2021
to 25.10.2021 to accused Nos.1 to 29 as the offences for which
4
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
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.
6. 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
5
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
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.
7. As per the case diary, there is one person by name Sri
Kommareddy Pattabhi/LW.27. He made certain statements on
19.10.2021 against the then Chief Minister of the State. The
record does not say what exactly were those statements.
However, records indicate 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
belonging 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 to the
spot of offence and they were holding iron rods, hammers,
hockey sticks etc. They reached the TDP state office and forcibly
pushed aside the security guard and forcibly entered the front
6
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
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 people. 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 there. However, the mob did not
relent, and they damaged several cars available within the
precincts. There was theft of one mobile phone and a laptop.
8. 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 intended to kill him and attempted to kill him. Everyone
who came to 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
7
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
as out-patients. The de facto complainant was admitted in
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.
9. In the second phase of investigation the succeeding
investigation officer reviewed the earlier investigation and
included the 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 and
subsequently added 88 persons as accused in addition to the
existing accused. Case diary produced in this case shows the
presence of various petitioners at the scene of offence.
10. Record discloses that the investigation has been in
progress. A.34, A.35, A.43 and A.56 were arrested and granted
regular bail by this Court on 05.08.2024 in Crl.P.No.4895 of 2024.
Some accused are yet to be arrested. Some accused are stated
to be absconding.
8
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
In the bail petitions, 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.
11. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that between the
first phase and the second phase of investigation there elapsed
9
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
998 days. There are no specific overt acts against these
petitioners. These petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The
record does not indicate they are flight risk. That there is no
material collected so far to indicate that they indulged in
tampering with any evidence.
12. As against those submissions, the fervent arguments of the
learned senior counsels for State are:
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 caused 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. 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 and there are criminal
10
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batchantecedents, confessions of co-accused and depositions of
witnesses against these petitioners and these accused are not
entitled for pre-arrest bail. The past conduct of some of the
prominent participants of this crime show their involvement in
various crime as mentioned below:
11
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
S. Criminal Petition Petitioner/Acc List of Confessio Criminal Antecedents of the accused
No used witnesses n of co-
. identified accused
1 CRLP/4548/2024 Sri. Lella LWs 9 to15, A20, A26, (i) Cr. No. 81/2009 filed under Section
Appireddy LWs 26 to A34, A35, 174A, 146, 147 Railways Act, R.P.F.,
30, and A40, A43, Guntur (Pending Trial)
(A30) LW40 A56, A64
(ii)Cr. No.74/2009 filed under
Section174A, 146, 147 Railways Act,
R.P.F., Guntur (Pending Trial)
(iii) Cr. No.06/2010 filed under
Section174A, 146, 147 Railways Act,
R.P.F., Guntur (Pending Trial)
(iv) Cr. No.08/2011 filed under
Section174A, 146, 147 Railways Act,
R.P.F., Guntur (Pending Trial)
(v) Cr. No.103/2012 filed under Section
143, 188, 341 I.P.C., Arundelapeta Police
Station Guntur (Pending Trial)2 CRLP/4537/2024 Sri. Gadela LW32, A40, A56, (i)Cr. No. 252/2015 filed under Section
Ramesh LW33 A64 188, 341 I.P.C., of Nagarapalem Police
Station, Guntur District.
(A39) (Disposed/Acquitted)
(ii) Cr. No.531/2018 filed under Section
143, 188, 341 I.P.C., of Arundelpeta Police
Station, Guntur District.
(Closed/Without filing Charge Sheet)
12
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
3 CRLP/4583/2024 Sri. Devineni LWs 9 to A20, A26, (i)Cr. No. 241/2010 filed under Section
Avinash 15, LWs 26 A34, A35, 323, 324, 34, 342, 363, 506 I.P.C., of
to 30 and A40, A43, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada.
(A31) LW40 A56, A64 (Closed/Without filing Charge Sheet)
(ii)Cr. No. 570/2015 filed under Section
143, 188, 341 I.P.C., and Section 30 of AP
Police Act of Patamata Police Station,
Vijayawada. (Under Investigation)
(iii)Cr. No.447/2017 filed under Section
143, 188, 290 I.P.C., of Machavaram
Police Station, Vijayawada. (Under
Investigation)
(iv)Cr. No.93/2024 filed under Section 324
read with 34, 341, 506 I.P.C., of
Kalyanadurg Police Station, Anthapuram
District. (Pending Trial)
4 CRLP/4796/2024 Sri Nandigam LWs. 20 to A20, A26, (i) Cr. No. 93/2010 filed under Section
Suresh Babu 30 and A35, A40, 156(3) Cr.P.C., 323, 34, 417, 420, 506,
LW40 A43, A56 509 I.P.C., of Thulluru Police Station,
(A80) Guntur District (Closed/Without filing
Charge sheet)
(ii)Cr. No. 47/2012 filed under Section
498A, 506 I.P.C., of Thullur Police
Station., Guntur District.(Acquitted)
(iii) Cr. No. 390/2020 filed under Section
147, 148, 302, 324, 109 I.P.C., read with
149 I.P.C., of Thulluru Police Station,
Guntur District. (Under Investigation)
13
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
5 CRLP/4628/2024 Sri. Talasila LW26, LW A20, A26,
Raghuram 27, LW29, A64
LW30,
(A78) LW40
6 CRLP/4710/2024 Sri. Shaik LW30, A5, A26,
Rabbani LW32, A34, A40,
Bhasha LW33, LW A43, A56
42 andA64
(A51)
7 CRLP/4808/2024 Sri. LW30, A64
Chinnabattina LW42
Vinod Kumar
(A100)
8 CRLP/5294/2024 Sri. LW31,
Sangasetti LW40,
Haribabu LW41
(A86)
9 CRLP/5297/2024 Sri. Bandaru LW31,
Anjanelyulu LW40,LW4
1
(A85)
10 CRLP/5303/2024 Sri. Oggu LW31,
Gavaskar LW40,
LW41
(A88)
11 CRLP/5329/2024 Sri. Shaik LW31,
Amitha@Amit LW40,
hab LW41
(A94)
Sri. Gellipogu
Raju@ Isuka
Raju
(A95)
14
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
12 CRLP/5349/2024 Sri. Nandepu LW31,
Jagadeesh LW40,
LW41
(A81)
13 CRLP/5351/2024 Sri. Avuthu LW31,
Srinivasa LW40,
Reddy LW41
(A83)
14 CRLP/5354/2024 Sri. Manyam LW31,
Jagadish LW40,
LW41
(A92)
Sri. Maddali
Venkata
Subba Rao
(A93)
13. Having bestowed requisite attention to the facts and the
contentions and the principles and the material placed before me,
the following aspects are to be stated:
In these proceedings, two political parties are involved and
the incidents that occurred at the crime scene impel this court to
preface a precept. With policies, aims and objects to pursue any
association or body of individual citizens of India would call itself
a political party. Everyone, including every political party, its
members, supporters and sympathizers are not expected to
indulge in any activity which may aggravate any existing
15
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batchdifferences or create mutual hatred or cause tension. Criticism of
other parties or activities of their workers and leaders must not
result in or lead to violence and breach of law. The right of every
individual for peaceful and undisturbed life shall be respected,
however much the political parties and their supporters may
resent the political opinions or activities of the other political
parties and their supporters. Discipline in life, obedience to law
always demands everyone to hear and heed the reasonable
advices of the police on duty. The political parties and their
leaders and supporters shall exercise control to the maximum in
moments of excitement.
14. Wise people said that political interference in police
investigation is a pervasive issue that undermines integrity to the
criminal justice system. Unholy interference can lead to selective
enforcement of laws, coverups and shift of culprits, compromised
impartiality, delayed or botched investigation, undermining of
police morale and credibility.
15. The problem of crime and the problem of political violence
are not the same. The law itself determines the range of
circumstances to be taken into account.
16
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
16. Freedom and rights of citizens are precious and are
broader in their amplitude. When once anyone is accused of an
offence, there emerges the need for jealous protection of his
rights and liberty. The system has to see to it that the
investigation and trial are fair to the accused as well as to the
immediate victim and also the collective mind, namely, the state.
Human beings desires security and yet everywhere their lot in life
is insecurity. Every organized large group always has leaders and
supporters. Those persons with capacity to influence others
through their words, actions and decisions and with their affective
communication and with their decisiveness delegate tasks to their
supporters and entrust them with different responsibilities and
they are capable of managing the emotions of their supporters.
Leading members take the initiative and have a strong network,
connect people and foster relationships. In a violent mob, leaders
may not always be obvious, and individuals can shift roles
quickly.
17. The case depicts vociferous mob. The arguments
advanced on both sides are strong, long and emphatic. Given the
17
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
nature of the case and the submissions on both sides, the
following aspects are to be recorded:
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 condemn the facts on record. 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 is 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 being belonged to
a particular political party, the investigation agency could not take
courage to conclude its investigation.
18
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
18. A change in the political Government took place in June,
2024. Earlier in the general elections, the party in power was
YSRCP. The main opposition party by then was TDP. The crime
incident took place on 19.10.2021. As the investigation
progressed, a greater number of accused were identified. Then
there was a hiatus. General elections took place. The party in
opposition till then won the mandate of the people and came into
power. Swiftness in investigation took place. Much more evidence
was collected, and many more accused were added.
19. It is in the above context, the arguments advanced on
behalf of the petitioners by their learned counsels is that it is the
change in the political incumbency that artificially aggravated the
case and there is no genuineness in the prosecution version.
When the prosecution version is not genuine, it is always advised
that it is a good case for granting anticipatory bail.
20. The further submission on behalf of the petitioners is that
there elapsed nearly three years between the date of offence and
this present phase of investigation, and the investigation agency
allegedly collected statements of various witnesses now and it is
based on their statements, prosecution has been contending that
19
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
a grave case is made out against the petitioners. Such
statements of witnesses which were recorded years after the
alleged incident cannot carry any weight in the eyes of the Law.
21. For petitioners, the following rulings are cited:
1. Sudershan Kumar V. State of Himachal Pradesh1
That was a case where the accused were acquitted by the trail
court and in appeal that was reversed, and they were convicted
by the High Court. In their further appeal, their Lordships stated
that the investigation agency recorded statements of witnesses
under section 161 CrPC with a delay of 77 days and failed to offer
any explanation for such an abnormal delay. That failure shook
the credibility of the statements of those witnesses.
2. Jafarudheen V. State of Kerala 2
1
(2014) 15 SCC 6662
(2022) 8 SCC 440
20
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batchThat was a case where convictions of accused were confirmed
and acquittals of some of the accused were reversed by the High
Court. When the matter was carried to their Lordships, on the
facts available from the record, their Lordships heed that there
was inordinate and unexplained delay in recording the statements
of witnesses and added to that there was no credible explanation
from the investigation officer about such delay. Their Lordships
finally stated that such aspects of a case would raise doubt in the
mind of the court. It is further stated that an inordinate and
unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution’s case,
however, the same depends upon the facts of each case.
3. Sumedh Singh Saini V. State of Punjab 3
That was a case where during the course of investigation
additional penal provisions were brought on record and the
original FIR was registered 29 years prior to the prayer for
anticipatory bail and the facts disclosed non initiation of any
further steps by the informant. In such circumstances, anticipatory
bail was granted. It has to be mentioned here that at paragraph
No.11, their Lordships also stated that many a time, delay may
3
(2021) 15 SCC 588
21
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batchnot be fatal to the criminal proceedings. However, it always
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, at the same time, a long delay like 29 years can
certainly by a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Susanta Ghosh V. State of West Bengal 4
That was a case of a regular bail and the prominent aspect
that fell for consideration was that the arrest took place about a
crime incident of which FIR was registered 9 years after the crime
incident. On facts it was found that during all those years there
has been no allegation that the applicant has interfered with the
investigation. At paragraph No.17, their Lordships stated that
tampering with the evidence or the investigation was found no
longer relevant since investigation was completed and charge
sheet was already filed in that case.
5. Bhalchandra Namdeo Shinde V. State of Maharashtra 5
4
(2012) 2 SCC 680
5
2003 SCC Online Bom 300
22
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
In this case, citing the binding precedent of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, it was ruled that unjustified and
unexplained long delay on part of the investigation officer in
recording statements of material witnesses during investigation
will render the evidence of such witnesses unreliable. Inordinate
delay in interrogation of witnesses during investigation is a
sufficient ground to exclude testimony in considering the
involvement of the accused in crime. At paragraph No.25, the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court recorded that normally in a case
where the commission of the crime is alleged to have been seen
by the witnesses who are easily available, a prudent investigator
would come to the examination of such witnesses giving
precedence over the evidence of other witnesses.
22. It is on the above principles, for petitioners, it is contended
that while considering these anticipatory bai applications, this
court may have to exclude that part of the evidence that was
allegedly collected after the change in the Government.
23. As against that, the stout reply from the State through the
learned senior counsels is that the earlier investigation was inept.
During that phase all the available material was never scrutinized.
23
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
That in the present phase of investigation the case diary entries
and the panchanamas made in evidence of what was seen from
the electronic evidence did show the complicity of the petitioners.
That an officer in the rank of DySP though being available at the
scene of offence was in fact not trying to quell the mob but was
seen obliging the criminals at the spot. It is further argued that
some of the police officers since exhibited gross dereliction and
reprehensible conduct by their perfunctory investigation and
biased attitude diluted the investigation. They were subjected to
disciplinary enquiry, and they were suspended. A copy of the said
proceedings is also placed on record here. It is argued that the
above circumstances and the material now collected and placed
themselves would offer enough justification of the delayed
collection of evidence and the rulings cited themselves laid down
that on showing justifiable cause for the delated collection of
evidence the material cannot be discounted. Therefore, at this
stage of investigation, nothing more needs to be stated here on
that aspect.
24. As the record that is made available indicates, one of the
injured said that he was beaten by hammers and other articles on
24
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
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 suffered suffocation 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 then investigating police. Failure at one stage can
certainly be rectified at a different stage. An investigating officer,
finding from facts, came to an opinion that certain more penal
provisions are available for investigation, and adding certain more
accused who played role and participated in this crime is acting
within the scope of law. By filing alteration memo, what was
altered was the application of some more penal provisions to
some of the existing penal provisions. All that depends on what is
gathered during the investigation. Therefore, the objection taken
25
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
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.
25. Learned counsels for petitioners submit that Liberty is
precious and every accused shall be presumed to be innocent
until guilt is proved and therefore their Lordships of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Jalaluddin Khan V. Union of India6
were pleased to reiterate the cherished principle that bail is a rule
and jail is an exception.
While considering the above principle of law it cannot be
contradicted that every case must be judged on its own facts and
the circumstances surrounding those facts. As a matter of
abstract principle of law, one must notice the principles stated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Srikanth Upadhyay V.
State of Bihar7. At paragraph No. 24, their Lordships held that
“…..the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power.
Though in many cases, it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory
6
2024 INSC 604
7
2024 INSC 202
26
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
bail is the rule”. Therefore, these petitions must be considered on
their own merits.
26. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that in this 3-year-
old crime, best part of the investigation was over and the nature
of the case does not require any custodial interrogation of any of
the petitioners and it is not the case of the prosecution that they
are flight risk or they tamper with the witnesses. They further
submit their apprehension of torture by police. On such
submissions learned counsels pray for granting the relief.
As against the above, learned senior counsels for
respondent/State cited State Represented by the CBI V. Anil
Sharma8. That was a case where influential people were involved
in the crime. The prayer therein was also for an anticipatory bail.
Their Lordships held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively
more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well
ensconced with a favourable order under section 438 of the
CrPC. Effective interrogation of a suspected person is of
tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information
and materials which would have been concealed. Success in
8
(1997) 7 SCC 187
27
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
such interrogation would elude if the accused person knows that
he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during
the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a
condition would be reduced to a mere ritual. The argument that
custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person
being subjected to third degree methods need not be
countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all
accused in all criminal cases. The court must presume that
responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a
responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
Their Lordships further held that the consideration which would
weigh in the court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail
need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after
arrest.
27. On considering the above rival contentions and the
principles of law, it has to be stated that the requirement of the
State as spelt out in the counters filed indicate that the petitioners
and their accomplices indulged in terrorizing their opponent
political parties and subverted the democratic process and there
28
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
was larger conspiracy and to unearth the same there is the
investigative need of interrogation. Looking at the facts of the
case, such opinion of the prosecution agency cannot be
denounced as not based on any genuine need. The case at hand
is one where none of the victims had any dispute with any of
these petitioners. However, these petitioners and others had
gone to their opponent’s political party’s office and destroyed the
furniture, cars and damaged the human bodies. Thus, without
there being any personal cause between the accused and the
immediate victims, the crime incident occurred. In such
circumstances, one cannot say that there was unwarranted
assertion for custodial interrogation.
28. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that names of many
of these petitioners are considered by the prosecution only based
on the alleged confessions of co-accused. Learned counsels
submit that confessions of accused and confessions of co-
accused are inadmissible in evidence. Excluding that evidence,
there remained nothing against these petitioners and therefore
they shall be granted anticipatory bail. In this regard reliance is
29
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
placed on Smt. Selvi V. State of Karnataka9. Their Lordships
held that the scheme created by CrPC and the Indian Evidence
Act mandate that confessions made before police officers are
ordinarily not admissible as evidence and it is only the statements
made in the presence of Judicial Magistrate which can be given
weightage. The protective scope of article 20(3) of the
constitution of India extends to the investigative stage in criminal
cases and when read with sections 161(2) CrPC, it protects
accused persons, suspects as well as witnesses who are
examined during investigation.
29. One must bear in mind that their Lordships in that
celebrated judgement were considering the aspect of compulsory
administration of scientific techniques against the suspects for
gathering information.
30. That confession of accused is inadmissible to find him
guilty is the rule that is not in controversy. The facts from the
record do indicate that there was investigation. That in every
investigation, the investigation agency records the statements of
witnesses, suspects and accused. Any incriminating statements
9
AIR 2010 SC 1974
30
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
made by accused would amount to confession and such
confessions made to police do not get admission for
consideration before a court. However, the statements made by
accused to police during investigation would furnish information
that enables the police to pursue the origins of crime and all those
who had role in the commission of the crime. The present case is
only a case for consideration of anticipatory bail and it shall not
be confused with that of a trial on a charge. That the contention of
the State to look at a person and consider him as accused may
be arrived at based on the statements gathered from the other
accused. Such investigative process is common and no rule is
shown prohibiting an investigation agency to proceed further with
its investigative efforts in that manner. In the case at hand,
detailed statements of various witnesses placed on record show
the involvement and participation of these petitioners in different
ways at the scene of offence and around it. Therefore, it is not a
case where all that is available against the petitioners is only
confessions of co-accused and nothing more.
31
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
31. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there are no
specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners and therefore
they deserve anticipatory bail.
There is no force in this submission. Their very presence at
the scene of offence itself is an overt act since the offence that
took place is one where a mob of people attacked the opponent
political party’s office and damaged everything available there
and they were shouting for blood and caused serious injuries to
one and injuries to others. It is not the case of the petitioners that
they were mere bystanders. All the petitioners swore that they
belonged to the then ruling party. Admittedly the scene of offence
is opponent political party’s office. Their presence was not there
for peace and as the exhibited conduct of the mob indicated it
was for destruction. Their target Mr. Pattabhi was not seen and if
the mob which arrived at had no other ideas except to catch hold
that person they should have left the place peacefully, once they
could not trace him. That was not the case. Despite the fact that
they did not trace that man, they went on to create havoc. A case
of such nature and such magnitude cannot be equated with a
case of one or few as against another one or few.
32
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
32. Learned senior counsel for respondent/State submit that Sri
Devineni Avinash in Crlp.No.4583 of 2024 was granted interim
protection. However, misusing it, without intimation to the police
or to this court he attempted to leave the country for Abu Dhabi
and was intercepted at the Airport. This submission is made to
show that he is a flight risk. In response to it, an affidavit and
additional material papers were filed on his behalf explaining that
he never intended to flout the law and he and his family members
intended to attend celebrations of birthday of his mother and
sister and rest of the family went and participated in the
celebrations and returned back and even he had his return tickets
also and that it was out of lack of knowledge, he did not inform
either to the court or to the police
33. The above submissions and response are merely recorded
and in the opinion of this court at this stage of proceedings no
observations need be recorded in that regard.
33
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
34. Learned counsels for petitioners place reliance on
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab10 and Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra 11.
These celebrated and monumental rulings guide the courts
in this country as they laid down the principles that are to be
considered in anticipatory bail prayers.
Learned counsels bring to the attention of this court to the
aspect that in these rulings their Lordships cautioned the courts to
consider that there are occasions where influential people are
tried to be implicated by their rivals in false cases with a view to
bring disgrace to them by getting them detained in jail and the
legislative wisdom in pre arrest bails is a measure to counter such
tactics. Their Lordships also mentioned that arrest should be the
last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases
where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10
1980 2 SCC 565
11
2011 1 SCC 694.
34
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
35. The importance of the above rulings is not in challenge
from the State in this case. However, the point to be noticed in
this case is that it is an open case where inappropriate
statements of one person from one party seems to have enraged
the men belonged to the other political party. The feelings of hurt
were to find redress through appropriate legal process. That was
not done. What they did was to attack the opponent political
party’s office and destroy and damage everything there.
Therefore, it is not a case where one is trying to falsely implicate
the political opponents.
In those celebrated rulings as well as in Arigela Venkata
Rama Rao V. State of AP 12, it was held that while considering
anticipatory bail two factors are to be considered. The impact of
grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people. The other aspect to be
noticed is the cases in which accused is implicated with the help
of Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC, 1860, the court should
consider with greater care and caution because over implication
in such cases is a matter of concern. Having applied these
12
2022 SCC Online AP 1532
35
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
principles to the facts at hand when this court has evaluated the
entries in case diaries it is seen that specific allegations are seen
against these petitioners. One has to keep in mind that merely
because some members of the large mob entered into the
building part and some members remained outside the building
part and only some members destroyed the cars, and some
members damaged the furniture and some members beat the
persons black and blue while other members were merely there
does not mean that there are no overt acts against those other
members. The unity in the mob and the leaders of the mob, their
united effort in organizing the incident of crime indicate that they
were part of the havoc that was successfully carried out. Be it
noted, the case on record is not one where people who were not
seen either through the eyes of witnesses or through the eyes of
cameras are involved.
In Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation 13,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled that at the stage of
considering a bail plea detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be
13
(2012) 1 SCC 40
36
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
under taken. Courts shall ensure that there is no pre judging of
the case. There shall be only a brief examination of the aspects
involved in the case. At the bail hearing what is to be seen is as
to whether there is prima facie case or not. If prima facie case is
available then the question that falls for consideration is whether
there is likelihood of subversion of justice if the accused are
granted relief. The facts on record would show in the case at
hand that even police personnel who were available at the scene
of offence were seen toeing the line of the perpetrators of crime.
The long hiatus in the investigation is indicative of some sort of
external influence on the investigation agency. Tampering with
witness itself is a ground for refusal of bail, tampering with the
system of justice must be considered as a greater cause to refuse
bail in advance.
Therefore, this is not a fit case for granting prayer for
anticipatory bail.
36. In the result, all the criminal petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
37
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
After pronouncing the orders, the learned counsels
appearing for petitioners prayed this court to grant interim
protection against coercive steps for a period of two or three
weeks so as to enable the petitioners to seek their remedies
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In this regard, learned
counsels submitted that this court grant such relief and cited
State of Chattisgarh V. Aman kumar Singh (2023) 6 SCC 559
and Gautam P Navlakha V. The State of Maharashtra 2019
SCC OnLine SC 2022.
Learned senior counsels appearing for respondent/State
opposed the prayer and submit that after pronouncing the order
no further orders could be or need be passed and on dismissal of
anticipatory bail petitions no further protection can be granted and
cited State of Telangana V. Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017) 2
SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited V.
State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401.
The rulings cited pertain to cases where interim protections
were sought after dismissal of quash petitions. The submissions
made on both sides find their answer in State of Uttar Pradesh
V. Mohd.Afzal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566. Their Lordships of the
38
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that on dismissal of
anticipatory bail petitions orders of interim protection cannot be
granted since such orders stand contradictory to the order of
refusal of anticipatory bail.
In view of the law as referred above, the request made by
the learned counsels for petitioners is declined.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 04.09.2024
Ivd/Dvs
39
Dr.VRKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.4548&batch
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 4548, 4537, 4583, 4628, 4710, 4796,
4808, 5294, 5297, 5303, 5329, 5349, 5351 and 5354 of 2024
Date: 04.09.2024
Ivd/Dvs