Mob Violence | Bail Can Be Granted Without Costs In Absence Of Material To Show Accused Person Damaged Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to the petitioners who were accused in mob violence without imposition of costs as there was no material to show that the petitioners had damaged the property. Facts of the case The facts of the case was that huge number of people gathered for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard...
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to the petitioners who were accused in mob violence without imposition of costs as there was no material to show that the petitioners had damaged the property.
Facts of the case
The facts of the case was that huge number of people gathered for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema District, by violating the order under Section 144 of CrPC and Section 30 of the Police Act. The mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to Collectorate, when Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and also burnt BVC college bus which was used as transport vehicle for police. The mob further caused damage to the house of Hon'ble Minister.
Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the involvement of petitioners was evident from the photographs taken at the scene of offence and investigation was still pending. According to the prosecution, petitioners were active participants in hatching the plan through social media which resulted in large scale violence. Furthermore, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Kodungalla Film Society v. Union of India (2018), the Prosecutor contended that the Court may impose costs for the loss caused to the State if at all this Court considered grant of bail to petitioners.
Observation of the Court
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati on perusal of the complaint observed that initially the names of the petitioners were not reflected in the complaint. Admittedly, the mob consisted of more than 1,000 people. None of the complaints indicated common intention or common object of committing an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC (punishment for attempt to murder). Specific overt acts were not attributed against the petitioners. Furthermore, the photographs filed by prosecution did not show that mob was armed with weapons.
On the above facts, the petitioners were granted bail and it was held that at this stage costs could not be imposed as there was no material to show that the petitioners had damaged the property.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions were allowed.
Case Title: YARRA SRINU Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 114
Click Here To Read/Download Order