Judgment · High Court · 2025
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
]n the result, this petition is allowed in the follOWing terms: -
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. ]n the result, this petition is allowed in the follOWing terms: - ln the event of arrest of the petitioner herein/accused, he shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs|20,OOO/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties…
Judgment
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
The Station House Officer, Tadipatri Town Police Station, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C.,) is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the S.H,O./I.O. of Tadipatri Town P.S, Ananthapuram District in Crime No.95 of 2024 dated 14.05.2024 u/s 147,148,188, 324, 307, 427 r/w 149 IPC on such terms and conditions as this Honlble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI. IVI SHANMUKHA TEJA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER THE HON'BLE SRrJUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.309 of 2025 ORDER-- This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. is filed seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail in Crime No.95/2024 of Tadipatr-I Town Police Station, Anantapuram District. Date and Time of Crime incident At about 05:00 PM on 14.O5.2024 place of Crime incident I I-uniOr COllege ground, Tadipatriown, Ananthapuramu. Date and Time of registration of FIR.No.95/2024 at 10.OOPM on Crime
14.O5.2024 Offences alleged Sections 147,148,188, 324, 307,427,120-Breadwith149lPC.
2. Heard arguments of learned counsel on both sides.
Perused the record. 4, Petitioner contends that he is innocent and unreasonably he was accused of these offences and has reason to believe that he may be arrested .
Respondent contends that the peace in the society was disturbed, property was damaged and people and public servants were hurt. The presence of the petitioner in Tadipatri is likely to create further unrest.
The material on record disclosed the names of big and not so big persons belonging to two leading political parties - one, the then ruling party, the other, the then opposition party. The incident occurred one day after this democracy went for elections to the Parliament and the Assembly. The allegations are that the rival groups of persons of ruling •se .--ed .---±rf±;-_ Jr, and opposition party, large in number, holding weapons, being led by their leaders, had been indulging 'ln riotous acts and despite firing by police they did not relent and caused damage to police vehicles.
Record further shows that the investigation commenced and progressed and certain witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded, material objects were seized and mahazars were prepared and some of the accused were arrested. The 'lncident, though created panic, is one that does not seem to require any custod'lal interrogation. Given the fact that this petitioner is Ordinary resident Of the area, minding his own avocation; granting the prayer does not dent the smooth investigation. However, there is need to hedge the emotions Of rival groups so as to allow the peace to thrive and perpetuate. Therefore, conditioning him by certain terms would serve the process of justice well,
Observations made here are limited to the present Proceedings,
Operative part
]n the result, this petition is allowed in the follOWing terms: - ln the event of arrest of the petitioner herein/accused, he shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs|20,OOO/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like Sum each tO the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/Investigating Officer, The petitioner/accused shall mark his attendance before the Investigating officer on 8th and 22nd of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier. The petitioner/accused shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat Or Promise tO any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. He shall -fro not indulge in similar acts of crime. From the time he avails the bail, he I+ shall stay away from Tadipatri town for a fortnight. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _ToI /ITRUE COPY// Fa sD/-B.CHITT' JOSEPH /6'
1. The Station House Officer, Tadipatri Town Police Station, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. One CC to SRl. M SHANMUKHA TEJA Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT] 4. One spare copy J, HIGH COURT SRK,J DATED: 27/01 /2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.309 of 2025 ALLOWED `\ \. A ` A A A i_ ` '\ \.\ ri'.,..
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ]n the result, this petition is allowed in the follOWing terms: -
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Jan 2025. The bench was K SREENIVASA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.