Andhra Pradesh HC Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To One Accused Of "Monitoring Through WhatsApp" Mob Agitation Over Renaming District After Ambedkar

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused pre-arrest bail to one accused of "monitoring" through WhatsApp messages, a violent mob that was agitating against renaming of Konaseema District after Dr. BR Ambedkar, last month.Justice Subba Reddy Satti noted that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in all the complaints. Witnesses also specifically mentioned his presence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the name of the Petitioner reflected in the complaint as well as the statements of list of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, the Court found that the Petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail and that his custodial interrogation is necessary. It was alleged that on a call given by the Konaseema Sadhana Committee, a huge number of people gathered to submit objections to the decision of renaming the district, in violation of Section 144 of the CrPC and Section 30 of the Police Act. They were joined by others and they eventually marched towards the collectorate. On their way, it is alleged that the mob pelted stones at the police who were discharging their duties and burnt BVC college bus which was being used as a transport vehicle for the police. The mob also pelted stones at the police at the collectorate office and some police officers sustained injuries. Glasses at the collectorate office and Ambedkar Bhavan were damaged. Later, the mob proceeded to the Red Bridge, intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set them to fire. The mob further moved towards the house of the MLA and pelted stones, damaging some glasses. When the cousin of the MLA tried to intervene, the mob poured petrol on him. He managed to escape. The mob entered the house of the MLA, set fire to the motorcycles, the furniture and the house. The State submitted that the Petitioner, being the leader, gathered his followers and monitored the entire mob through WhatsApp messages. It was argued that a prima facie case was established against the Petitioner through statements of the injured, confessions of the arrested accused and footage recorded through the incident, making him unentitled for a pre-arrest bail. The counsel for the Petitioner claimed that the Petitioner was innocent and never participated in the offences laid against him. He argued that the incident took place after the ruling party aggravated the agitation and caused nuisance to tarnish the image of the other political party, as was reported by the media and stated by victims. He pointed out that the Petitioner's role was not detailed in any of the FIRs, which only mention his name. He submitted that, except using the word 'mob', no specific overt acts were attributed against any of the accused persons, including the Petitioner. When there are no specific over acts attributed against a person, bail cannot be denied, he argued. He also argued that the word 'unlawful assembly' is not applicable to the mob. As per Section 141 of the IPC, a group consisting of five or more persons with a common object of committing an offence will be designated as an unlawful assembly. It was submitted that in the present case, FIRs do not disclose any such common object or intention on part of the mob and when there is no such common intention, all the persons who were present at the time of the alleged incident cannot be arrayed as accused. This makes Sections 146 and 147 of the IPC inapplicable to the case. It was also argued that Section 307 of the IPC would not be attracted against the Petitioner. The act of setting buses on fire knowing that the drivers were inside could not be attributed to the Petitioner unless the prosecution specifically ascribe his role. The counsel for the Petitioner claimed that the drivers were not inside the bus and the buses were open when fire was set to them, as is evident from the videos. He submitted that it was not the intention of the mob to kill drivers, and that some miscreants joined the mob and destroyed public property. Therefore, at the most, offences under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are to be attracted. The Petitioner's counsel alleged that Section 307 of IPC was only added to the charges to deprive him from a bail, since all other offences are bailable. He further submitted that no weapons were seized from the 120 people arrested so far. He also pointed out that the police have not filed any petition seeking custodial interrogation. He further argued that Section 39 of the CrPC, dealing with the duty of the public to give information relating to commission of certain offences to the nearest magistrate or police officer, would not apply in the Petitioner's case, as he did not have knowledge about the commission of the offence. He submitted that the police were discharging their duties and the time of the alleged commission of the offence, so, even if it is assumed that the Petitioner was present at the time, he...

Andhra Pradesh HC Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To One Accused Of "Monitoring Through WhatsApp" Mob Agitation Over Renaming District After Ambedkar

EKTA RATHORE

Another, accused of participating in the mob, was granted regular bail.

Tags