Andhra Pradesh High Court - AmravatiVegullaleela Krishna vs The State Of Ap on 28 May, 2020Bench: M.Venkata RamanaTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANACRIMINAL PETITION No.2027 OF 2020\n\n\nORDER:-The petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.108/2020 of\n\nMandapeta Police Station, East Godavari District. The offences\n\nalleged are under Sections 323, 306 read with 116 ofIPC. It is\n\nan application underSection 438of Cr.P.C for grant of\n\nanticipatory bail.2.    The case of the prosecution is that one Rachakonda\n\nBheemaraju, who is the defacto complainant in this case, was\n\nworking for the contractor for collecting toll from the vendors in\n\nthe market for the last two months. On 15-05-2020 at about\n\n5.30 am, when he was collecting such toll from the farmers, who\n\nhad brought the produce for sale in a school ground, the\n\naccused, who belonged to a political party questioned him in\n\ncollecting the toll at higher rate than prescribed, to which the\n\ndefacto complainant informed him that he was collecting the toll\n\nas per the rates fixed by the Municipal authorities. In that\n\nsituation, as per the version of prosecution the accused slapped\n\nthe defacto complainant in the presence of several others in that\n\nmarket area, humiliated him. Unable to bear such humiliation,\n\naccording to the version of the prosecution, at about 11.30 am\n\non the same day in an open site near Bhasyam School, the\n\ndefacto complainant consumed an insecticide and attempted to\n\ncommit to suicide. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital\n\nwhere he was subjected to treatment.23.    On   the   strength     of   the   complaint   of   the   defacto\n\ncomplainant itself, a case was registered against the petitioner\n\nfor the offences stated above.4.    It is now contended by the learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner that the alleged victim has survived in his attempt\n\nand a false complaint is foisted against the petitioner in as\n\nmuch as he questioned about collection of toll at higher rate\n\nthan prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further\n\nbrought to the notice of this Court that on the complaint of the\n\naccused    the   Commissioner,      Mandapeta    Municipality      also\n\nimposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- for such illegal and unauthorized\n\nact on the part of the contractor. Thus, it is contended even if\n\nthe case of the prosecution is considered that the petitioner\n\nquestioned such activities of the contractor, it could not have\n\ndriven the defacto complainant to such drastic act.5.    Learned counsel for the petitioner also informed that even\n\nthough a notice, dt.16-05-2020 underSection 41-Aof Cr.P.C\n\nwas served directing the petitioner to appear before the\n\nconcerned Investigating Officer, he did not appear, in as much\n\nas he suspected that he would be arrested at the instance of\n\nruling political party members, who are bent upon making the\n\npetitioner to face such action. It is also contended by the\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that the municipal contractor\n\nwho was assigned such responsibility of collecting toll belongs to\n\nthe ruling political party.36.    In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner requested that anticipatory bail be granted to the\n\npetitioner since there is any amount of justification and since\n\nthe petitioner is apprehending that he would be subjected to\n\nharassment by the concerned police in the guise of arrest.7.    Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this petition\n\nstating that the material on record is disclosing highhanded\n\nbehaviour on the part of the petitioner and he did not even care\n\nto respond to the notice served by the Investigating Officer\n\nunder Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.8.    Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended\n\nthat having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged as well\n\nas the incident, discretion need not be exercised in favour of the\n\npetitioner.9.    As seen from the complaint, it is clearly attributed to the\n\npetitioner that he not only accosted the defacto complainant for\n\nan alleged act in collecting toll at higher rate than prescribed,\n\nbut also slapped him. This conduct if accepted is demonstrative\n\nof highhandedness on the part of the petitioner. A clear overt act\n\nis attributed to the petitioner in this respect. The reaction of the\n\ndefacto complainant, when he was so slapped in the presence of\n\nseveral others in a market area when felt ashamed is reflected,\n\nwhich    apparently   had    driven   him   to   attempt    suicide.\n\nNonetheless, all these circumstances are subject matter of\n\ninvestigation. The question relating to collection of higher toll\n\nand the action taken by the Municipal authorities against the\n\ncontractor shall also be subject matter of investigation.410.   Suffice for the present purpose, the specific overt act\n\nattributed to the petitioner. When they are viewed in the context\n\nof the circumstances, which according to the prosecution had\n\ndriven the defacto complainant to resort such drastic act, it\n\ncannot be stated that it is a fit case, to exercise discretion to\n\ngrant anticipatory bail. Gravity of the incident holds key in the\n\nprocess. Thus, finding no justification to grant anticipatory bail,\n\nthis petition has to be dismissed.11.   In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed._________________________________\n                               JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA\n\nDate: 28-05-2020\n\nIS5THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA\n\n\n\n\n         CRIMINAL PETITION No.2027 OF 2020\n\n                  Date: 28-05-2020\n\nIS