Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency, 2008 (‘the NIA Act’), challenging the order dated 22-09-2023, the Division Bench of U. Durga Prasad Rao* and Kiranmayee Mandava, JJ., noted that the precise accusation against the appellant was that he unlawfully and intentionally used in the airport, a device or substance or weapon and committed an act of violence which was likely to cause grievous hurt or death. The Court opined that for the purpose of considering the bail application, the violence allegedly committed by the appellant neither caused grievous hurt or death nor was likely to cause grievous hurt or death. Further, the Court opined that the appellant had rightfully stated that mere using the device, substance or weapon and committing the act of violence was not the be all and end all of the offence under Section 3A(1)(a) of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 (‘the Act’), unless such violence was likely to cause grievous hurt or death of any person, which was not the case in the present case. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and released the appellant on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
Background
In the present case, during the instance, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, the victim was the leader of opposition political party and was presently the Chief Minister of State of Andhra Pradesh. On 25-10-2018, the victim along with his members entered the VIP Lounge of the Visakhapatnam Airport, and the appellant, who was working as a waiter went to the VIP Lounge to serve tea to the victim and requested for a selfie. However, it was alleged that the appellant went close to him and attacked him with a Rooster knife and intended to stab on the neck, but when the victim moved, in the process the appellant inflicted an injury on the upper left arm of the victim.
Thereafter, immediately the protocol officers, local police and CISF personnel caught the appellant and apprehended him. Subsequently, the victim left for Hyderabad and went to Citi Neuro Centre, Hyderabad and got himself treated by the Doctors, and the Doctors opined that the injury caused to the victim was simple injury.
Further, on the complaint of the Security Officer of Visakhapatnam Airport, the Airport police registered a case against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and later he was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, considering the gravity of the offence, the Central Government vide order dated 31-12-2018, directed the National Investigating Agency (‘NIA’) to take up investigation. Thus, a crime was re-registered under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 3A(1)(a) of the Act.
Further, the appellant filed a bail application and the same was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 22-05-2019. Subsequently, the NIA filed a criminal appeal and vide order dated 19-07-2019, the Division Bench of the present Court found that the Trial Court while dealing with the bail application had not considered the parameters fixed in Section 6A of the Act and remanded back the matter to the Trial Court to pass an appropriate order after hearing taking into consideration Section 6A of the Act. Subsequently, the Trial Court opined that a prima facie case for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 3A(1)(a) of the Act was made out against the appellant and therefore there was no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant was not guilty and that he was not likely to commit any offences while on bail. Thus, the appellant filed another bail application, which was also dismissed by the order dated 22-09-2023.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 3A(1)(a) of the Act and opined that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC might not be a hurdle for considering the bail application because charge-sheet was filed in 2019 and the appellant had been in custody all along and the trial had also commenced. Further, the apprehension made by the respondents was that the appellant might flee and not be available for trial could be taken care of, if the appellant ultimately deserved bail.
The Court noted that the precise accusation against the appellant was that he unlawfully and intentionally used a device or substance or weapon and committed an act of violence which was likely to cause grievous hurt or death. The Court opined that for the purpose of considering the bail application, the violence allegedly committed by the appellant neither caused grievous hurt or death nor was likely to cause grievous hurt or death. Further, the Court opined that the appellant had rightfully stated that mere using the device, substance or weapon and committing the act of violence was not the be all and end all of the offence under Section 3A(1)(a) of the Act, unless such violence was likely to cause grievous hurt or death of any person, which was not the case in the present case.
The Court further noted that right to speedy trial was implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and a quest for speedy trial should not remain as a desolate mirage but serve as an oasis. The Court opined that “expeditious trial and freedom from detention are part of human rights and a judicial system which allow incarceration of men and women for long periods of time without trial otherwise amounts to denying human rights to under trials, more so, when the delay was not attributable to the accused in jail.”
The Court relied on Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P. Rama Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 and opined that there could be no demur that speedy trial within a reasonable time was the legitimate expectation of an accused incarcerated in jail like the appellant. However, if the completion of the trial was not possible in the near future, the appellant could not be attributed with any fault. The Court opined that the apprehensions that appellant might flee or not be available for trial, could be taken care of.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and released the appellant on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of Trial Court. Thereafter, on release, the appellant should mark his appearance before the SHO, Mummidivaram Police Station, East Godavari District on every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM until further orders and he should cooperate with the Trial Court for smooth completion of the trial. The Court also the appellant to not give any statements before print and electronic media.
[Janepalli Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 274, decided on 08-02-2024]
*Judgment authored by – Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Srinivasulu P., Advocate;
For the Respondents: Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt, Central Government Counsel
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
