Angallu Violence | 'Can't Assume He'll Influence Investigation Merely Because He's Influential': AP High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Chandrababu Naidu
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday granted pre-arrest bail to former chief minister Chandra Babu Naidu in the Angallu Violence case observing that the offence under section 307 of IPC (attempt to murder) was prima facie not proved against him. Justice K. Suresh Reddy added that one could not assume that the petitioner would influence the witnesses and tamper with the investigation...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday granted pre-arrest bail to former chief minister Chandra Babu Naidu in the Angallu Violence case observing that the offence under section 307 of IPC (attempt to murder) was prima facie not proved against him.
Justice K. Suresh Reddy added that one could not assume that the petitioner would influence the witnesses and tamper with the investigation merely because he was an influential person.
"So far as the apprehension that the petitioner may influence the witnesses and hamper the investigation is concerned, it is to be noted that merely because he is an influential person, it cannot be assumed that he may influence the witnesses and hamper the investigation, more so, when the incident allegedly took place between two groups of persons belonging to rival political parties."
The Court added that the report did not indicate that Naidu had personally engaged in the alleged attack. It was also highlighted that there was no mention of a deadly weapon being used by the former chief minister.
"As seen from the report lodged by the defacto complainant, the allegation against the petitioner is that upon seeing the de facto complainant and others, who were waiting at the scene to give a representation to the petitioner, and upon identifying them as YSRCP leaders, the petitioner pointed his finger towards them and uttered some words instigating the leaders and party workers of Telugu Desam Party to cause an attack. There is no allegation that the petitioner participated in the alleged attack and there is no reference to any deadly weapon having been used by the petitioner in the alleged attack."
Justice Reddy had previously dismissed a regular bail petition filed by Naidu in the case on the ground that remand in one case could not be deemed remand in the other case.
The crux of the prosecution case is that, while conducting a rally on 04.08.23, instigated his party men to "do away" with the YSRC party members present at the rally, an incident that left multiple individuals and police officials seriously injured. The crime was registered on 08.08.23 under various sections of the IPC.
Arguments Advanced:
The case of the petitioner was that the case was a false one "foisted on account of political rivalry." It was also argued that there was a delay of 4 days in filing of the F.I.R which "casts serious doubt on the veracity of the case."
It was stated that on the day of the incident, the petitioner after securing all needed permits, was conducting a rally along with thousands of other party supporters and it was the de facto complainant along with his associates from the YSRC Party, who started stone pelting trying to cause obstruction.
Adding to that, it was contended that the de facto complaint did not suffer any injuries, and thus section 307 of the IPC, would not attract. The petitioner submitted that section 307 was added to the charges so as to deny the petitioner his legal right under section 41A of the CrPc (notice before arrest).
Lastly, it was contended by the defence that other accused in the case had been granted anticipatory bail, an order that was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Advocate General on the other hand contended that no malice could be attributed to the delay in filing of the F.I.R, as the same was filed after due diligence of watching CCTV footage, etc. The AG further stated that as the party leader, Naidu should not have instigated the fight, which resulted in numerous individuals getting hurt, including 47 police officials.
The Advocate General also refuted the argument that since the co-accused were granted bail, he too, was entitled to the same relief. It was contended that being the main perpetrator the petitioner herein stands on a different footing as the other accused.
It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the examination of many witnesses was still pending, and awarding any bail at this stage to the petitioner could amount to obstruction of justice and tampering with witnesses.
Naidu was accordingly released on anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Mudiveedu Police Station.
Case Title: Sri Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of AP.
Counsel for petitioner: Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ginjupalli Subba Rao
Counsel for Respondent: Senior Counsel, Advocate General Subramanyam Sriram.
Click Here To Read/Download Order