The High Court in a common criminal petition barred bail for eight accused (A1 to A8) facing charges of murder,Attempt, and rioting. The court held that the nature of the offences warranted denial of bail.
Bail applications dismissed; petitioners not released on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 640 & 641 of 2012 COMMON ORDER:
These criminal petitions are filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., seeking release on bail, pending enquiry and trial in P.R.C. No.46 of 2011, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302, 120-B r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and Section 9(B)(2) of Explosives Act, 1884, on the file of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, Kadapa District.
Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these petitions are as follows:
The petitioners are A1 to A8. It is alleged by the prosecution that A2, A5 and A20 are brothers and close relatives of one Subbi Reddy, who was the deceased in Crime No.137 of 2010 of Pendimarry P.S. The deceased in this case is A3 in the said crime. It is further alleged that A1 to A8, and A10 to A14 conspired with A9 who is the cousin of the deceased Subbi Reddy and a practicing advocate at Kadapa. On 29.05.2011, at about 11.00 a.m. all the accused conspired at the house of A3. On 05.06.2011, at about 11.15 a.m. A10 drove the lorry AP04-T-1238 on the instigation of A1 who was present in the cabin and intentionally hit the Bolero, in which the deceased and some others were travelling. A6 and A7 hurled one bomb each on to the front and backside of the
Bolero and both the bombs exploded. On seeing the explosion of the bomb, the driver of Scorpio drove towards Cherlopalli side to escape, but that vehicle went into the roadside ditch. At that time, A2 to A5 and A11 to A15 attacked the Scorpio vehicle. A2 to A5 hurled one bomb each out of which two bombs exploded, as a result of which, the deceased sustained splinter injuries on his left back and right arm. A2 to A5 and A11 to A15 hacked the deceased with hunting sickles indiscriminately and caused severe bleeding injuries. After all the accused left the place, the witnesses who were travelling in Bolero came and saw the deceased with multiple injuries. Two witnesses who are the accused in Crime No.137 of 2010 of Pendimarry P.S., also sustained serious injuries and they were shifted to hospital. The police, upon receiving complaint from one of the witnesses LW.1, registered a case. The police seized the incriminating material from the scene of occurrence. Upon the arrest of A1, certain incriminating weapons used in the commission of offence were also seized.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the applications submitted that the petitioners are agriculturists and since the police completed investigation and filed charge sheet, the petitioners may be released on bail by imposing any condition.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications.
The cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and circulatory failure due to multiple injuries over head. Though the investigation is completed and police filed the charge sheet, the offences appear to be a retaliation to the death of one of the close relatives of A2, A5 and A20 relating to Crime No.137 of 2010 of Pendimarry P.S.
Prima facie, it appears to be a pre-planned attack on the deceased and other accused in Crime No.137 of 2010. It is not a case of sudden attack. From the material on record, there appears to be reasonable grounds for believing that the accused have been guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, a ghastly incident has taken place in broad daylight. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offences are committed, the petitioners/A1 to A8 do not deserve to be released on bail.
Hence, the criminal petitions are dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
20th January, 2012
KSM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are eligible for release on bail considering the gravity of the offences and the plan of the attack.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A1 to A8
State of Andhra Pradesh vs A1 to A8
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
