Telangana High Court
Bogamoni Suresh vs The State Of Telangana on 10 January, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16140 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of respondent – State.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under
Section – 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for Short
‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with FIR No.145 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet Police
Station, Vikarabad District.
3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the
aforesaid Crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections
– 189(2), 191(3), 126 (2), 127 (2), 132 and 109 read with 190 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for Short ‘BNS’).
4. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged
by Mr. Rathod Kannaiah, PC 1404 of Bomraspet Police Station, the
police registered a case in Crime No.145 of 2024 against the petitioner
herein and others.
2
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024
5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said
complaint are as follows:
i) On 25.10.2024, a first public hearing was fixed by the
Revenue Authorities. Mr. Avuti Shekar, President of Congress Party,
Dudyal Mandal proceeded to Lagacherla from Hyderabad to attend
the said public hearing at 10.00 A.M. Before entering into
Lagacherla, the accused obstructed his vehicle at Rotibanda Thanda
and damaged his vehicle and confined him in Gram Panchayat
building and locked the main door. Meanwhile, huge public were
gathered and then police came and rescued the said Shekar. The
accused intended to attack on him with one big iron rod and sticks and
forcibly hit the main door with an intention to kill the victim
presuming that at the instance of the said Shekar only, Pharmacity is
coming at Lagacherla. Subsequent to the said incident, the public
hearing was postponed to 25.10.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
name of the petitioner is not there in the complaint. During the course
of investigation, the Investigating Officer included the name of the
petitioner as accused No.2. He has also filed a memo to the said
effect.
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed counter along with the
statements of LWs.1 to 7 including the complainant as LW.1 and the
said Avuti Shekar as LW.4 and the statements of Mr. Srinivasulu, Mr.
Ravi Naik, Mr. Thunkimetla Vijay Kumar, driver of LW.4, Mr.
Merugu Srikatnh,an Agricutlurist and resident of Dudyal Village, Mr.
Avuti Nagaraju, an Agriculturist and resident of Lagacherla Village.
He is nephew of LW.4.
8. All of them in one voice spoke about the role played by the
petitioner herein. The petitioner is the flower of Accused No.1 and he
is the main conspirator. There are specific allegations against him and
the same are serious in nature. At the instance of accused No.1 and 2,
other accused restrained LW.4 and tried to kill him. Investigation is
still pending.
9. Section – 189 of BNS deals with ‘unlawful Assembly’, while
Section – 191 of the BNS deals with rioting. Section – 127 of the BNS
deals with ‘wrongful confinement. Section – 132 of the BNS deals
with assaults or uses criminal force to deter any person from discharge
of his official duty and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment of
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both.
10. Section – 126 of the BNS deals with wrongful restraint
and punishment for the same is one month or with fine which may
extend to Rs.5000/- or with both. Section – 190 of the BNS says that
every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in
prosecution of common object. Section – 109 of the BNS deals with
attempt to murder. Thus, the punishment for the aforesaid offences
except the offence under Section – 109 of the BNS is below 7 years.
Therefore, petitioners are entitled for benefit under Section – 35 (3) of
the BNSS.
11. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain
parameters that can be demonstrated while dealing with anticipatory
bail and it is relevant and same is extracted below:
“121. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be
provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are
clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide
rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all
circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly1
. (2011) 1 SCC 694
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In
consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal
of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and
circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the
Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia’s case (supra) that the
High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their
jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful
use of their discretion which by their long training and
experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is
the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and
honour.
122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly comprehended before
arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any
cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat
similar or the other offences.
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting
him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases
of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material
against the accused very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the
case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the
help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the
court should consider with even greater care and caution
because over implication in the cases is a matter of
common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors
namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and
full investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the
accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to
be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event
of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail.”
12. The Apex Court further held 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
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024
that case. The Court must carefully examine the entire available
record and particularly the allegations which have been directly
attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by
other material and circumstances on record.
13. The Apex Court further held that the aforesaid factors are
only illustrative. It is difficult to clearly visualize all situation and
circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a
wide discretion is exercised by the concerned judge after
consideration of entire material on record, then most of the grievances
in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The
legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this
jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior Courts. In consonance
with the legislative intention, the discretion would be properly
exercised.
14. The Apex Court further held that irrational and
indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights.
15. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 2, a Three-Judge
Bench of the Apex Court referred to the third Report of the National
2
. (1994) 4 SCC 260
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024
Police Commission in which it is mentioned that the quality of arrests
by the Police in India mentioned “power of arrest was one of the chief
sources of corruption in the police. The report suggested that by and
large nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified
and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the
expenditure of the prison department”. Personal liberty is a precious
fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes
imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case.
16. Relying on the said judgment, the Apex Court in Sushila
Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 3 held that despite several Law
Commission Reports and recommendations of several committees and
commissions, arbitrary and groundless arrests continue as a pervasive
phenomenon. Parliament has not thought it appropriate to curtail the
power or discretion of the Courts, in granting pre-arrest or anticipatory
bail, especially regarding the duration, or till charge sheet is filed, or
in serious crimes. Therefore, it would not be in the larger interests of
society if the Court, by judicial interpretation, limits the exercise of
that power: the danger of such an exercise would be that in fractions,
3
. (2020) 5 SCC 1
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024
little by little, the discretion, advisedly kept wide, would shrink to a
very narrow and unrecognizably tiny portion, thus frustrating the
objective behind the provision, which has stood the test of time, these
46 years.
17. In Fireman Ghulam Mustafa v. State of Uttaranchal 4,
the Apex Court held that to justify a conviction under Section 307 of
IPC, the Court has to see whether the act was done with the intention
to commit murder. Although the nature of injuries caused may be of
assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused,
such intention may also be gathered from the circumstances like the
nature of weapons used, parts of the body where the injuries were
caused, severity of the blows given, the motive and other facts of the
case.
18. In Smt. Parisha Trivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh5,
wherein the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur stressed upon the
177th Report of the Law Commission of India under the heading
“INTRODUCTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF ARREST”, the same is
relevant, it is extracted below:
4
. (2016) 15 SCC 752
5
. MCRCA No.944 of 2024, decided on 23.09.2024
10
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024“Liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. It has
been the founding faith of the human race for more than
200 years. Both the American Declaration of
Independence, 1776 and the French Declaration of the
Rights of Man and the Citizen, 1789, spoke of liberty being
one of the natural and inalienable rights of man. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on 10-12-1948
contains several articles designed to protect and promote
the liberty of individual. So does the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Above all,
Article 21 of the Constitution of India proclaims that no
one shall be deprived of his right to personal liberty except
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Even
Articles 20(1) & (2) and Article 22 are born out of a
concern for human liberty. As it is often said, ‘one realises
the value of liberty only when he is deprived of it’.
Liberty, along with equality is the most fundamental of
human rights and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by
the Constitution. Of equal importance is the maintenance of
peace, law and order in the society. Unless, there is peace,
no real progress is possible. Societal peace lends stability
and security to the polity. It provides the necessary
conditions for growth, whether it is in the economic sphere
or in the scientific and technological spheres.”
19. In the light of said discussion and the principle laid down
the aforesaid decisions, prima facie, the allegations levelled against
11
KL,J
Crl.P. No.16140 of 2024
the petitioner are serious in nature. The Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of the aforesaid witnesses.
20. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein is accused
No.2 in Crime No.153 of 2024 pending on the very same police
Station. He was arrested on 12.11.2024 and released on bail on
09.01.2025. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the
present crime and in Crime No.153 of 2024, cause of action and place
of incident etc., are different. Prima facie, there are specific
allegations against the petitioner herein in the present crime.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner herein.
21. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the criminal petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
10th January, 2025
Mgr
[ad_1]
Source link