Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the failure of the accused to submit their mobile phones while in custody cannot be considered non-cooperation. The decision was rendered while granting bail to former Member of Parliament N. Suresh Babu and businessman Avuthu Srinivas Reddy in connection with a case relating to an alleged attack by YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) supporters on the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) office in Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.

The court, presided over by Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, citing precedents including Sanket Bhadresh Modi V. Central Bureau of Investigation and Selvi V. State of Karnataka, asserted that “the failure of accused in submitting their mobile phones while in custody cannot be termed as non-cooperation from the accused.”

The court’s observation came while hearing two criminal petitions relating to an incident that occurred on October 19, 2021, at the TDP state office located at Mangalagiri Mandal. At the time, the YSRCP was in power, and the TDP was in opposition. According to the police, a group of approximately 70 individuals, including the petitioners, arrived at the TDP office armed with iron rods, hammers, and hockey sticks. They allegedly forced their way into the building, damaging furniture and attacking TDP workers, injuring five people. The incident was reported by one of the injured, and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, and 506 read with 149 of the IPC. Subsequent investigations led to the addition of sections 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109, 120B, and 149 of the IPC.

Represented by Senior Advocates Siddhartha Dave, P. Veera Reddy, and P. Sudhakar Reddy, the petitioners contended that they had been compliant throughout the investigation. It was argued that failing to submit mobile phones or disclose their whereabouts did not equate to non-cooperation, emphasising their constitutional right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, who were arrested in September 2024, claimed they were falsely implicated due to their affiliation with the YSRCP. It was argued that the allegations lacked evidence of their direct involvement and that they had complied with notices issued under Section 41A Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Additionally, it was highlighted that they had been in judicial custody for over a month, claiming that the accusations were politically motivated and that they had not committed any act warranting their continued detention.

Opposing the bail, the State, represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and Public Prosecutor C. Lakshmi Narayana, maintained that N. Suresh Babu had a history of criminal cases and that his involvement in this case was confirmed through witness statements. The prosecution argued that mobile phones were crucial to obtaining electronic evidence, including WhatsApp chats and location data, which could substantiate their claims of a premeditated attack. They also raised concerns that the accused might interfere with the ongoing investigation or tamper with evidence if released on bail.

After considering the arguments, the court rejected the State's assertion that failure to submit mobile phones amounted to non-cooperation. The court observed that compelling the accused to provide information that could incriminate them would violate their constitutional rights.

Furthermore, the court noted that while evidence suggested the presence of the petitioners outside the TDP office during the incident, their continued detention could not be justified merely on these grounds. The court pointed out that several other accused in the case had already been granted bail, and the petitioners had been in custody for over a month without any significant progress in the investigation against them.

The court stated, “The contention of the State is that there are other accused who are still at large and there is larger conspiracy which is to be unearthed. Those contentions show that qua these accused, investigation stood completed,” further observing that the petitioners' occupations, residences, and availability over the years indicated that they were unlikely to abscond or evade legal proceedings.

“Investigation agency may not feel deterred in securing further electronic evidence simply because it could not take hold of the mobile phones from the accused. While the material produced before the court does indicate some sort of presence of these petitioners outside the TDP office thereby showing that they have some role to play in the offence that was allegedly committed, such material justifies their arrest and detention. However, their continued detention must be justified by the prosecution, failing which, the court has to necessarily consider the prayer for bail positively,” the court remarked.

Based on these considerations, the court found further detention unnecessary and granted bail to both petitioners.

 

Cause Title: Avuthu Srinivas Reddy v The Station House Officer [CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6295 and 6306 of 2024]