Delay in FIR Justified Due to Victim's Need for Immediate Medical Attention: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 15th October 2024, dismissed two criminal petitions seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition Nos. 5282 and 6005 of 2024. The petitions were filed by A1 and A2, accused in a grievous hurt case, where they allegedly attacked the victim over prior disputes. The Court held that the serious nature of the injuries, the specific overt acts attributed to the accused, and the ongoing investigation justified the denial of anticipatory bail.

On 3rd July 2024, the victim was attacked on the Parchuru-Inkollu road while speaking on the phone. A1 and A2, arriving on a motorcycle, accused the victim of spreading complaints about them and providing information to journalists. The accused picked up nearby sticks and assaulted the victim, causing severe injuries, including a shoulder dislocation. The victim was taken to the hospital, and a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged the next day under Crime No. 120 of 2024.

The accused sought anticipatory bail, claiming they were innocent, and the charges were fabricated due to previous civil disputes, including a money recovery suit pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Parchuru. They also raised concerns about the delay in filing the FIR and the choice of hospital.

The defense argued that the FIR was delayed by over 26 hours despite the police station being only 2 km away. They also questioned the victim's decision to seek treatment at a hospital 30 km away. The Court dismissed these arguments, reasoning that the victim's first priority was medical attention, which justified the delay. The FIR was lodged after the police recorded the victim's statement at the hospital.

The victim sustained multiple injuries, including a fractured wrist and a dislocated shoulder, which were confirmed by medical examination. The Court emphasized that the grievous nature of the injuries and the specific allegations against the accused made this a serious offense.

Both sides admitted that the accused and the victim belonged to different political parties, which further fueled the dispute. The Court acknowledged that political rivalry and pending civil suits may have played a role in the attack but affirmed that this did not diminish the gravity of the offense.

The Court highlighted that anticipatory bail is not granted in cases involving serious bodily harm, particularly when the investigation is still ongoing. The Court rejected the argument that there were no specific overt acts attributed to the accused, noting that the FIR detailed their direct involvement in the assault.

Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar concluded that the accused were not entitled to anticipatory bail due to the seriousness of the offense and the pending investigation. The Court stated:

"The contention that there are no specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners is against the facts on record."

The Court also found no substance in the arguments regarding the delay in the FIR and the choice of hospital. As a result, both criminal petitions were dismissed.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the principle that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving grievous hurt, especially when the accused are directly implicated and the investigation is incomplete. This ruling underscores the seriousness with which the Court views offenses involving physical violence and the importance of ensuring a thorough investigation before granting bail.

Date: 15th October 2024

A1 and A2  VS State of Andhra Pradesh