Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/7900/2019 of SALADI BALU GRAM Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2019
SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7900 of 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C) to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is accused
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7900 of 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C) to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.
2. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.75 of 2019 of Palthuru Police Station, Anantapuramu District.
3. The alleged offences against the petitioner is under Sections 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code.
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the lands of A.1 and the deceased are situated adjacent to each other. There was a dispute between A.1 and deceased relating to inundation of water into the field on account of the fact that the bund in between the fields was cut. In the said quarrel between A.1 and the deceased there was a fight in between both of them. The brother of A.1 who is the de factocomplainant went to the police station to complain against the said incident. Police summoned the deceased to the police station. A.2 is the Head Constable working in the said Palthuru Police Station. After deceased came to the police station, A2 asked the deceased to sit on the floor in the police station and to stretch his legs. Thereafter, A.2 stamped on the legs of the deceased with his legs, A.2 also beat the deceased with rubber patta on his legs. After some time the deceased fell down and died. Therefore, A.2 has committed the aforesaid offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that prior to the incident that took place in the police station as alleged by the prosecution, there was a fight between A.1 and the deceased. So the deceased might have sustained injuries in the said fight in the hands of A.1 and died and it cannot be said that the deceased died on account of the injuries said to have been caused by A.2. In fact, A.2 did not beat the deceased and he was falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. He also submits that the petitioner is already suspended. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that there is a clear allegation in the FIR that the petitioner who is A.2 beat the deceased with rubber patta and that the deceased fell down in the police station and he died. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased did not sustain any injuries in the hands of the petitioner who is A.2. He would further submit that post mortem report is still awaited and investigation in this case is still in progress. Therefore, in view of the gravity of offence, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Perused the record.
9. It is a case registered under Section 304 Part-II of IPC relating to the offence of commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The record reveals that the deceased fell in the police station and thereafter died. The contents of the FIR show that shortly before his death he was attacked by the petitioner herein who is A.2. It is clearly stated that the petitioner stamped the legs of the deceased with his legs and thereafter beat him with rubber patta. Therefore, the accusation made against the petitioner herein is prima facie well founded. Simply because, earlier there was a fight between the deceased and A.1, it cannot be said that the death is not on account of the injuries caused by the petitioner. The said fact has to be still ascertained during post mortem examination. There is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that he was involved falsely in this case on account of political rivalry. The petitioner is an employee working as Head Constable in the police station. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention that he was falsely implicated in the case on account of political rivalry. As it is stated that the petitioner, who is Head Constable, beat the deceased and as he died thereafter, as already observed supra, the accusation made against the petitioner is prima facie well founded.
10. Having regard to the gravity of offence as this case is registered under Section 304 Part-II of IPC relating to the offence of commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner was suspended from the service is not a valid ground for grant of anticipatory bail for an offence of like nature.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Dt.31.12.2019 Akc
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Criminal Petition No.7900 of 2019
Akc
Date: 31.12.2019