Neerugatti Pradeep & Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Ravi Cheemalapati, J

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short), seeking regular bail, by the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 to 9 in Crime No.120 of 2022 of B.Kothakota Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 353, 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (‘IPC’, in short), Section 36 read with 32 A of Andhra Pradesh Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016 and Section 55(2) read with Section 3, 4 and 6 of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1985.

The facts of the case, in brief, are on 04.07.2022 at about 7.00 a.m., in front of Z.P. High School, Sankarapuram Cross, Badikayalapalle village, B. Kothakota Mandal, the Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his staff intercepted the accused while they were transporting red sandal logs in Qualis vehicle, which is piloted by a motor cycle. At that time accused shouted to kill the police personnel by dashing with the vehicle, pounced upon police personnel and pelted stones. However, Police personnel escaped from the said attack and arrested seven persons and one person absconded. Hence, the above crime was registered against the petitioners and others.

Heard Sri V. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that petitioners are innocent farmers and they are falsely implicated in the present crime while they were returning from their fields. It is also stated that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioners except bald allegations. It is stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 are languishing in jail since 04.07.2022 and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. With regard to the Petitioner No.4 it is stated that he is not at the scene of offence and he was later implicated in the crime based on the confession of the other accused. He is languishing in jail since 07.07.2022 and he never involved in any other crime. It is submitted that in the event if bail not granted to the petitioners they will suffer irreparable loss. Hence, prayed for considering the bail application.

Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that all the petitioners, except petitioner No.4, were arrested at the scene of offence and the crime in which petitioners are involved is of serious nature. He further stated that though there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners, in view of the serious nature of the offences alleged, they does not deserve indulgence of this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Petition.

Perused the material on record. The averments in the complaint and the statements recorded goes to show that the petitioners 1 to 3 were caught hold at the scene of offence and the offences are serious in nature and as such this Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioners 1 to 3, at this stage. However, Petitioner No.4 was not found at the scene of offence and he was implicated basing on the confession statement of the other accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with confessional statements made by the accused before the Police Office in Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 8 SCC 130, held as under:

"7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started."

In view of the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as there are no criminal antecedents against the 4th petitioner and he is languishing in jail since 07.07.2022, this Court is inclined to consider

this petition in respect of Petitioner No.4, however by duly taking the apprehensions of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner No.4 shall be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, Annamaiah District;

(ii) Petitioner No.4 shall appear before the Station House Officer, B.Kothakota Police Station, East Godavari District, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 12.00 noon and 04.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet and apart from that he shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when he is summoned for investigation purpose; and

(iii) Petitioner No.4 shall not directly or indirectly contact the witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation.

Further, Petitioner No.4 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.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part, whereby dismissing the petition against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and allowing the petition of the 4th petitioner.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.