THE HON’BLE SMT.

JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4324 of 2021

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 439 of Code of

the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking regular

bail to the petitioner/A-1 in connection with Crime No.375 of 2021

on the file of G.Konduru Police Station, Krishna District, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 188 147, 148, 341,

323, 324, 120-B, 109, 307, 427, 506, 353, 332 r/w 149 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 3 of ED Act

and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015

(for short “SC ST Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant

is working as car driver of one Paladugu Durga Prasad Rao, who is

the leader of YSR Congress Party. On 27.07.2021 at 5.40 p.m.

when the defacto complainant, his owner and some others were

going to Tella Devarapadu village and when they reached

Munagapadu village, the petitioner and 17 named persons in five

cars were coming in opposite direction. It is stated that the

petitioners and others, stopped the vehicle and pulled the defacto

complainant from the car, enquired about him and on knowing

from him that he is resident of Ambedkar Colony, Guntupalli

village, the petitioner intimidated and abused the complainant in

the name of his caste. It is also stated that at the instigation of

petitioner, the other persons attacked the complainant and others

with sticks and iron rods and caused injuries. Thereafter when the

complainant went to police station, the petitioners and his

 2

followers who were already present there, threatened the defacto

complainant for coming to police station for giving report. Basing

on the complaint given by the complainant, the above crime was

registered.

3. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and

Sri O.Kailashnadh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the defacto complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basing on

political reasons the petitioner has been implicated in this case

and even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken on its face

value, they do not attract the offences alleged, particularly Section

307 of IPC and the offences under SC ST Act. He submits that

even as per the case of the defacto complainant, there is no prior

acquaintance between complainant and petitioner, as such the

question of abusing him in the name of his caste does not arise.

He submits that all the offences except Section 307 of IPC are

punishable with imprisonment below seven years and only to by-

pass Section 41-A of Cr.P.C the above sections were included. He

submits that though the petitioner was taken into custody at 5.00

p.m. on 27.07.2021, his arrest was shown on 28.07.2021 at 3.00

a.m.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 307

of IPC has no application to this case, as neither the petitioner

stepped down from his car nor instigated the others to attack on

the defacto complainant. In fact petitioner’s car was damaged and

his followers were attacked, which was widely reported in print and
 3

electronic media and along with criminal petition, he also filed the

paper clippings, wherein it was reported that petitioner was sitting

in the car and in the attack, car was damaged. He submits that

when the petitioner does not know the caste and when there is no

previous acquaintance with the defacto complainant, the offence

under Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act is not attracted, as knowledge is

pre-requisite to attract the said offence. He further submits that in

fact the persons who belong to party in power and who are

associated with illegal mining resorted to attack, but the petitioner

was made a scapegoat. He submits that even as per the

complaint, the complainant and others have not sustained

grievous injuries. It is submitted that the petitioner is aged about

59 years. He further submits that taking into consideration the

pandemic situation, the Apex Court as well as this Court issued

guidelines and the same may be taken into consideration. In

support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:

1) Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh1.

2) Tukaram Gundu Naik Vs. State of Maharastra2.
3) Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020 of the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
4) Proceedings of the High Power Committee dated
12.05.2021 of High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that

at the behest of the petitioner, all the accused assaulted the

defacto complainant and others and to the facts of the case Section

307 of IPC clearly attracts. Further, there are specific overt acts

against the petitioner attracting the offences under the SC ST Act.

1
(1988) 4 SCC 551.
2
(1994) 1 SCC 465.
 4

He submits that the prosecution has filed custody petition before

the Court below and the same is coming up for hearing tomorrow

and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. He submits

that to conduct speedy investigation and to arrest the other

accused, the custody of the petitioner is necessary. He submits

that whether the petitioner has knowledge about the caste of

complainant or not, cannot be inferred at this stage and on the

face of it, petitioner has abused the complainant, as he belongs to

a particular caste and at his instigation, other accused assaulted

them. He submits that to attract the offence under Section 307 of

IPC, whether the complainant sustained injuries is not the criteria

and he urged to dismiss the petition.

7. Sri O.Kailashnadh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the defacto complainant submits that the petitioner is

influential person and there is threat to the life of the complainant,

if the petitioner is released on bail. He submits that the petitioner

will hamper the investigation process and the judgments relied on

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the

facts of the case. In the referred cases, after a full-fledged trial the

accused was acquitted and in the appeal against acquittal, those

findings were given by the Apex Court and in the present case, at

this stage, those aspects cannot be looked into. He submits that

the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary

and when the custody petition is pending before the Court below,

petitioner is not entitled for bail.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel appearing on

 5

behalf of the defacto complainant and perused the material on

record.

9. Before going into merits of the case, it is appropriate to look

at the object and reasons for enactment of SC ST Act.

Despite various measures to improve the

socioeconomic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are
denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to
various offences, indignities, humiliations and
harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been
deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are
committed against them for various historical, social and
economic reasons.

Because of the awareness created amongst the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through
spread of education, etc., they are trying to assert their
rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the
others. When they assert their rights and resist practices
of untouchability against them or demand statutory
minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced
labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and
terrorise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self respect or
honour of their women, they become irritants for the
dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of
even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more
often these people become victims of attacks by the
vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in
the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities
like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat inedible
substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass
killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the
circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of
Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the
Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to
 6

check these crimes. A special Legislation to check and

deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled
Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become
necessary.”

10. Now, it is appropriate to look at Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)

of SC ST Act, which reads thus:

3. Punishments for offences of atrocities – (1) Whoever, not

being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe –
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Schedule Tribe –
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten
years or more against a person or property (knowing that
such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member),
shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.

11. To attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act,

firstly a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Schedule Tribe, must have committed the offence under the

provisions of IPC, it is against the person or property and is

punishable for a term of ten years or more. Secondly, the offences

must have been committed on the ground that such person is a

member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is pertinent to

observe that Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act was amended with effect

from 26.01.2016 and the words “on the ground that such person is

a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such

property belongs to such member” is substituted with words

 7

“knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member”.

12. Section 8 of SC ST Act deals with presumption as to

offences, which reads thus:

8. Presumption as to offences:– In a prosecution for an offence

under this Chapter, if it is proved that –
(a) the accused rendered any financial assistance to a person
accused of, or reasonably suspected of committing, an
offence under this Chapter, the Special Court shall
presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person
had abetted the offence
(b) a group of persons committed an offence under this
Chapter and if it is proved that the offence committed was
a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or any
other matter, it shall be presumed that the offence was
committed in furtherance of the common intention or in
prosecution of the common object.
(c) the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim
or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused
was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim,
unless the contrary is proved.

After amendment to Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act, Clause (c)

to Section 8 of SC ST Act was inserted by Act 1 of 2016.

13. A bare reading of the above provisions, it is clear that to

attract the offences either under Section 3(1)(r) of 3(2)(v) of SC ST

Act, there should be intention and knowledge.

14. Coming to the facts of the case, as per the complaint there is

no previous acquaintance between the petitioner and defacto

complainant. In the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner

asked him, “who are you”, for that he replied that he is resident of

Ambedkar Colony and immediately, the petitioner started abusing

 8

him in the name of his caste. The statement of the defacto

complainant appears to be very improbable for the reason that

without any previous acquaintance and knowledge, just because

he stated that he is resident of Ambedkar Colony, it cannot be

presumed that the petitioner is aware of the caste of the defacto

complainant and with knowledge and intention he has abused

him. Further, to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST

Act, an offence under the provisions of IPC must have been

committed, because the complainant belongs to SC caste. It is

nobody’s case that the attack was on that ground. As per the

remand report and complaint, it is the rift between two political

groups and their followers. Prima facie, it appears that the

petitioner has no knowledge about the caste of the defacto

complainant.

15. Coming to the allegations attracting Section 307 of IPC, it is

appropriate to look at Section 307 of IPC, which reads thus:

307. Attempt to murder.— Whoever does any act with

such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty or murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if
hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of

the Hon’ble Court in Hari Kishan vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors3,

wherein it was held thus:

3
(1988) 4 SCC 551
 9

“7. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under

Section 307/149 IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in

mind. Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is,

whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the

intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in

that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must

be such as is necessary constitute murder. Without this

ingredient being established, there can be no offence of

"attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes

the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be

gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the

consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used,

manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the

blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some

of the factors that may be taken into consideration to

determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the course

of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious and

minor. The accused though armed with ballam never used the

sharp edge of it. They used only the blunt side of it despite

they being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries

but not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the

weapon. It is very significant. It seems to us that they had no

intention to commit murder. They had no motive either. The

fight as the High Court has observed, might have been a

sudden flare up. Where the fight is accidental owing to a

sudden quarrel, the conviction under Section 307 is generally

not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the

acquittal of accused under Section 307 IPC.”

17. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the

offence must have been committed with intention and knowledge,

as is necessary to constitute the offence of murder. In the case on

hand, as per the complaint, the petitioner has not inflicted any

injuries and according to the complainant, it is the other accused

 10

who beat him and others. As per the remand report, the motive

attributed is, earlier a case was registered against the followers of

the petitioner vide Crime No.108 of 2021. But admittedly,

petitioner is not the accused in that case.

18. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of defacto complainant is that custody

of the petitioner is required to find out the whereabouts of other

accused, because the petitioner concealed and hidden the other

accused. In the newspapers it was reported that two grounds

indulged in fight and stones were pelted on the car of the

petitioner, due to which petitioner’s car was damaged. In the fight,

leaving the other group, the petitioner’s followers were beaten up

by the police. As per the police, petitioner was sitting in the car

after the incident and created law and order problem. In the entire

remand report, it is nowhere stated about the car of the petitioner

being damaged and whether any case is registered against the

persons, who pelted stones on the car of the petitioner. Further, it

is not the case of the complainant that he has sustained any

grievous injury.

19. In Emperor Vs. H.L. Hutchinson4, it was held thus:

“11. On general principles and on principles on which

Sections 496 and 497 (as amended in 1923) are framed the

grant of a bail should be the rule and refusal of bail should be

the exception. In the cases of a bailable offence, the law

expressly says that if the accused person applies for bail he

shall be released (Section 496). Section 497 applies to cases of

non-bailable offences and there it is said that the accused

4
1931 SCC Online Allahabad 14 = AIR 1931 Allahabad 356
 11

person shall be released on bail except where there appears to

be a reasonable ground for believing that ha has been guilty of

a very heinous offence, viz, one which may be punished by

either death or by transportation for life: Section 497 (1). Again

it is laid down that, where at any stage of the investigation or

trial, there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the

accused person has committed a non-bailable offence, but

there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt,

the accused shall be released on bail: Section 497 (2).”

20. While granting bail, the Courts have to strike balance

between the interests of society and sanctity of individual liberty.

Further, the Courts have to look into nature of offence, gravity of

accusation, role of accused, antecedents of accused, possibility of

accused fleeing away from the justice, likelihood of repeating the

similar or other offence, tampering with evidence, influencing and

threatening the witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of the

present case, where prima facie, it appears that because of political

rivalry between two groups, the incident has occurred and no

grievous injuries were sustained by the defacto complainant.

Further, this Court is of the view that it is not a case, where

custodial interrogation is warranted. Hence, this Court deems it

appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.

21. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the

petitioner/A-1 shall be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime

No.375 of 2021 on the file of G.Konduru Police Station, Krishna

District, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees

twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each for a likesum to

the satisfaction of X Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA)
 12

Act, Machilipatnam. On such release, the petitioner shall

cooperate with the investigation.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall

stand closed.

___________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

4th August, 2021

PVD
 13

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

Allowed

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4324 of 2021

4th August, 2021

PVD