Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Accused Who Allegedly 'Stabbed' CM YS Jagan Mohan Reddy At Vizag Airport In 2018

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to J. Srinivasa Rao, accused of allegedly stabbing Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy in 2018 in the VIP lounge of Vishakapatnam Airport.

The Court held that merely using a weapon, and committing an act of violence would not inadvertently amount to an offense under section 3A (offense at airport) of the Suppression of Unlawful Act against Safety of Civil Aviations Act, 1982, unless such act was likely to cause grievous injury or death. It held:

"From the above available facts, for the purpose of considering the bail application, we are satisfied that the violence allegedly committed by the accused neither caused grievous hurt or death nor is likely to cause grievous hurt or death. As rightly argued by the petitioner, mere using the device, substance or weapon and committing the act of violence is not the be all and end all of the offence U/s 3A unless such violence is likely to cause grievous hurt or death of any person which is not the case in the present instance."

The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice U. Durga Prasad and Justice Kiranmayee Mandava in an appeal filed by the accused challenging the bail dismissal order passed by the trial court in September, 2023.

While passing the order, the Bench noted that a reading of the FIR along with the medical report would not disclose the occurrence or likelihood of occurrence of a grievous injury or death, which is a prerequisite for offense under section 3A of the 1982 Act.

The Court noted that section 307 of IPC and 3A(1) of the 1982 Act were added on the allegation that the accused intended to strike the neck of the victim but missed and struck the left shoulder instead. 

It observed that the FIR only stated that the accused asked for a selfie with the victim and attacked the victim with a small knife on the left upper hand below the shoulder and thereby he sustained a bleeding injury on his hand.

"It is germane to note that in the FIR there was no specific mention that the accused wielded the knife on the neck of the victim to kill him. We are not oblivious of the fact that a FIR is not an encyclopedia of all the facts relating to a crime but at the same time, an attack with an intention to kill is not a negligible fact to be missed in the FIR," the Court observed.

Background:

The incident took place in 2018, when the now Chief Minister was waiting in the airport lounge to board his flight from Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad.

The accused who was a working staff at the airport was alleged to have come to serve tea to the victim, requested for a photograph and when the victim obliged stabbed him with a small knife in his shoulder.

The accused was apprehended by the airport staff and medical assistance was provided to the individual and the doctor designated the injury a 'simple injury' and was allowed to board his flight to Hyderabad.

The case was referred to the National Investigation Agency and a case was registered against the accused under the above-mentioned statues and provisions.

In 2019, the bail application was filed by the accused and was allowed by the trial court. The prosecution appealed against the order and the High Court set aside the bail holding that the trial court had not properly appreciated the provisions of 3A of the 1982 Act that stipulate that a magistrate may only grant bail to an accused after hearing the public prosecutor. 

The matter was remanded back, and the trial court subsequently dismissed the petition for bail. In 2023, the accused moved another petition for bail which was dismissed citing Section 6A, and the prima facie case against the accused. This dismissal order was challenged, leading to the present appeal.

Arguments and Finding:

The senior counsel for the accused argued that the FIR does not disclose cognizable offenses under section 307 of IPC and 3A of the 1982 Act. It was also submitted that the accused had been languishing in jail for almost 5 years and since the investigation had concluded, there could be no contamination of evidence thus the accused deserved to be released on bail.

It was also brought to the notice of the Court that up until the date of filing of the appeal only the first witness had been examined by the prosecution and subsequently the matter had been stayed by the High Court.

The Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that even the 'likelihood' for grievous hurt or death are to be considered under section 3A. It was further argued that the NIA had conducted the investigation in a speedy manner and filed a charge sheet in time and the delay was because of the COVID pandemic.

The Court conceded with the arguments of the appellant and held that cognizable offense was not made out.

Accordingly, the bail was allowed with certain conditions imposed by the Court.

CrLA: 804 of 2023

Counsel for appellant: Srinivasulu P.

Counsel for respondents: Additional Solicitor General

Click Here To Read/Download Order