IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 1238 of 2010 Between: 1 Tammisetty Hanumantha Rao,A4 S/o. Jamalaiah, R/o. Newabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District 2 Uppa Srinu,a-5 S/o. Pentaiah R/o. Newabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District 3 Ginjupalli Venkateswarlu @ Venkaiah,A-6 S/o. Late Anantharamaiah, R/o. Newabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District 4 Ginjupalli Rosaiah,A-7 S/o. Late Anantharamaiah, R/o. Newabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District 5 Bandi Gopala Krishna,A-16 S/o. Krishna, R/o. Newabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of A.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto relese the petitioner on bail pending enquiry and trial into Crime No.213 of 2009 of Penuganchiprolu, Krishna District The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 1283 of 2010 Between: 1 Chintha Venkateswara Rao, (A2) S/o Late Sri Ramaiah, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 2 Chintha Nageswara Rao, (A3) S/o Late Sri Ramaiah, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 3 Atluri Veeraiah, (A8) S/o Late Venkateswarlu, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 4 Dandagala Nagaraju @ Nagulu @ Nagu, (A9) S/o Sri Veeraiah, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 5 Chintha Madhava Rao, (A10) S/o Nagaiah @ Nagulu, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 6 Uppu Yesu, (A12) S/o Sri Guravaiah, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 7 Vemula Prasad, (A13) S/o Sri Nageswara Rao, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 8 Chintha Ramesh @ Chittaiah, (A14) S/o Sri Nagaiah, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 9 Atluri Suresh, (A15) S/o Sri Veeraiah, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 10 Tumati Siva, (A17) S/o Sri Pitchaiah, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 11 Shaik Pakeer Saheb, (A18) S/o Sri China Peeru Saheb, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 12 Bandaru Babu, (A19) S/o Sri Venkataswamy, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 13 Kancharla Bala Swamy, (A20) S/o Sri Chinna Joji, R/o Nawabpet Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto release the petitioners on bail pending enquiry and trial into Cr.No.213 of 2009 of Penuganchiprolu P.S., Krishna Dist. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 1297 of 2010 Between: 1 Sriram Dhanunjaya @ Chinna Babu, R/o Jaggaiahpet Village, & Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Mallela Gandhi, S/o Pitcha Rao @ Pichaiah, R/o Makkapeta Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 3 Sriram Badri Narayana, S/o Krishna Rao, R/o Jaggaiahpet Village, & Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto enlarge the petitiones herein / accused No.1, 24 & 25 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No in FIR No.213 of 2009 of PS., Penuganchiprolu, in the interests of justice. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.VINOD KUMAR DESHPANDE, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER PSR, J. Crl.P.Nos. 1238; 1283 and 1297 of 2010 Common Order: The three petitions are fled by different accused in Cr.No. 213 of 2009 of Penuganchiprolu Police Station, Krishna District, for their release, as indicated below: S.No. Crl.P.No. Filed by Relief sought 1 1238 of 2010 A-4, 5,6,7 and 16 U/s 437 & 439 & 167 (2) Cr.P.C. for release on bail. 2 1283 of 2010 A-2, 3, 8 to 10, 12 to 15, 17 to 20. .do. 3 1297 of 2010 A-1, 24 & 25 U/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution case, on account of political factions, Ginjupalli Veeraiah (the deceased) who was a congress party leader and former Sarpanch of Navabpet village, was killed on 19.10.2009 at about 7.20 AM at a temple in the village by several persons, apart from the persons named in the FIR, in pursuance of a conspiracy that was hatched amongst the accused. 3. As per the complaint, given by the son of the deceased, on 19.10.2009 at about 7-20 AM, while the deceased went to the temple, adjacent to NH-9, A-1 to A-7 along with some others attacked him; his head was chopped with hunting sickles. When the complainant tried to intervene, they have pushed him away at knife point and escaped in Scorpio vehicle bearing No. AP-16-BD-5566. Certain witnesses were also cited in the complaint. 3. The contention of the petitioners in all the petitions is that on account of political factions, the petitioners are falsely implicated. However, there is no dispute about the homicidal death of the deceased. 4. The case against the petitioners, in Crl.P.No. 1297 of 2010, who are A-1, 24 and 25, is that they have conspired to kill the deceased. The name of the first petitioner in this petition (A-2) is found in the FIR. The contention of Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in this petition is that on account of political factions and as the present petitioners are important persons in the village, they are falsely implicated. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that they are the conspirators and they are the persons that are actually behind the gruesome murder. 5. It is not in dispute that the anticipatory bail petition earlier filed by these petitioners was dismissed by this court. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that there is change of circumstances, as the matter being referred for further investigation to CID, as seen from the memo filed into the Court on 18.2.2010 and on account of that fresh anticipatory bail application is maintainable. 7. As per the Memo., referred to above, the investigation at the first instance was taken up by the Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet; later it was transferred to Inspector of Police, Avanigadda and finally it was transferred to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nandigama, who filed the charge sheet, keeping certain aspects pending and at that stage, the case was transferred to CID. Thus, now the investigation has to be conducted by the CID, in addition to the investigation already conducted by the SDPO, Nandigama. Technically, there is possibility of further investigation to be conducted by the CID revealing different facts and as such the contention that there is change of circumstances can be accepted and this fresh anticipatory bail petition can be entertained. 8. Coming to the merits, the allegation against the first petitioner (A-1) is of his being present at the scene and participating in the offence. It is stated that after the incident they ran away in Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP-16-D-5566. The learned senior counsel contends that subsequently the prosecution changed the version saying the vehicle used was a Sumo and further subsequently to another vehicle; all these circumstances show the falsity of the prosecution case and the first petitioner being the brother of the MLA, he is falsely implicated. I am not inclined to accept that the first petitioner’s case can be considered at all for grant of anticipatory bail, as his name is found in the complaint; it is a day-light murder and the complainant is no other than the son of the deceased. There might be some discrepancy about the vehicle used etc., and that cannot be considered at this stage. 9. As far as Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (A-24 and 25) are concerned, the allegation against them is of being conspirators. The material against them is said to be the telephonic conversion they had with other accused before and immediately after the incident. Learned senior counsel contends that the petitioners are local business people and politicians and on account of that there is possibility of their speaking with several persons and on that basis it cannot be presumed that they have conspired to commit the offence. 10. In case, there were only one or two conversations earlier to the commission of the offence, it can be treated as the conversion made in normal course; but when there are number of conversations prior to the offence and particularly, immediately after the offence, with the persons that have allegedly actively participated in the offence, it would prima facie lead to the presumption that there is possibility of the petitioners being involved in the conspiracy. The accused who participated in such a gruesome murder would only be communicating with the persons that have something to do with the offence, apart from with their kith-and-kin in such circumstances. 11. In the above circumstances and in view of all these reasons and in view of the nature of offence, I hold that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (A-24 and A-25) in Crl.P.No. 1297 of 2010 are also not entitled for anticipatory bail. 12. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other two petitions (Crl.P.Nos. 1238 and 1283 of 2010) is that they are falsely implicated; names of some of the petitioners are not found in the complaint and therefore they are entitled for bail and apart from that they are also entitled for bail under section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., by relying on the decision of this court Puligadda Pitcheswara Rao v. The State[1]. As far as S. 167 (2) Cr.P.C., is concerned, the circumstances referred to in Puligadda Pitcheswara Rao’s case (1 supra) are not existing in the present case.; as in this case the charge sheet is filed with all the material, may be further investigation is contemplated. 13. Coming to the merits, there are eye witnesses to the incident, one of whom is none other than the son of the deceased. In the complaint names of some of the assailants are mentioned and it is stated that apart from those persons, some other persons also participated. 14. It may not be desirable to discuss in detail about merits at this stage. On account of the name of Petitioner No. 5 (A-16) in Crl.P.No. 1238 of 2010 and the names of Petitioner Nos. 6 to 13 (A- 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) in Crl.P.No. 1283 of 2010 not being found in the FIR, which was given by no other than the son of the deceased, to whom these petitioners were obviously known, the above persons can be granted bail. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 5 (A- 16) in Crl.P.No. 1238 of 2010 and Petitioner Nos. 6 to 13 (A-12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) in Crl.P.No. 1283 of 2010 are ordered to be enlarged on bail, on each of them executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,000-00, with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the situation in the village is still tense; police picket is posted there and if the accused enter the village there is likelihood of breach of peace in the village. Considering the circumstances it is directed that Petitioner No. 5 (A-16) in Crl.P.No. 1238 of 2010 and Petitioner Nos. 6 to 13 (A-12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) in Crl.P.No. 1283 of 2010, after their enlargement of bail shall stay at Machiplipatnam town and report before the Station House Officer, Chilakalapudi Police Station, Machilipatnam, at 8-00 AM and 8-00 PM, every day, till further orders. In case they have to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahapet in connection with this case, they have to appear only with proper escort to be provided by the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. They have to inform in advance to the SHO, PS., Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, where they would be appearing everyday and get appropriate steps for providing escort. The Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet is also directed to direct the presence of these petitioners (accused) only on the dates when their presence is absolutely required and not on all the dates of formal posting, if any. 16. In the result – Crl.P.No. 1297 of 2010 is dismissed and Crl.P.Nos. 1238 and 1283 of 2010 are allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. February 24, 2010. *BVS Mark copy of this order to: 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna at Machilipatnam 3. The SHO PS, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam Krishna Dist. [1] 2010 (1) LS 1