Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Physical Disability and Absence of Direct Involvement Key in Granting Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on the 10th of May, 2024, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to Ramachandra Reddy, also known as Gaddam, who was implicated in a criminal conspiracy case. The decision, presided over by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, emphasized the petitioner’s physical disability and the lack of direct participation in the alleged crime as crucial factors for the decision.

The court dealt with the application of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which pertains to the granting of anticipatory bail. The petitioner, accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including conspiracy to commit murder, argued for bail primarily on the grounds of his severe physical disability and the unsubstantiated nature of his involvement in the actual act of violence.

On March 11, 2023, an assault took place near Saibaba Temple, Anantapuramu. It was alleged that the petitioner, along with others, conspired to murder the victim. The assailants, who are still unidentified, were accused of attacking the victim with sharp weapons and fleeing the scene. The key issue was whether the petitioner, with a 90% disability affecting his mobility and grip, could realistically partake in the commission of the crime, and whether his alleged conspiratorial role was substantiated by sufficient evidence.

The court carefully examined the nuances of the petitioner’s involvement and the credibility of the evidence against him. Key points from the court’s observations include:

Physical Disability: Justice Rao highlighted, “Considering the nature of disability of the petitioner, it may not be possible for him to interfere with the investigation.” This played a significant role in the decision to grant bail.

Investigative Oversights: The court noted errors in the investigation process, particularly in the remand report where unsubstantiated claims about the petitioner’s involvement were initially recorded.

Lack of Direct Involvement: It was emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting the petitioner’s direct involvement in the assault, marking a critical distinction in the case.

Decision Justice Rao concluded to grant anticipatory bail to Ramachandra Reddy on specific conditions: surrendering within two weeks, executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of the same amount, and cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

Date of Decision: 10th May 2024

Ramachandra Reddy @ Gaddam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Similar News