Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 34, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chalivendra Ramakrishna Salivendra ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR


CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,

 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,

                     5920 and 9083 of 2024


COMMON ORDER:

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri 3 M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai 4 Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned 5 Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. 6 Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

7

Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. 8 Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. 9 Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

10

Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. 11 Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

12

Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

13

Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. 14 Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

15

Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

16

Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. 17 Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

18

Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments.

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed by the respondent-State.

19

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office.

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni 20 Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused in the present crime.

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh and their family members and used indecent language. In response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and condemned the statements made by the opponent political party people.

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the place.

21

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic among everyone available there. In the first information report the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The version of the de facto complainant is that there were police people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one room were found with charred marks.

22

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned about their mobile phones and only seven out of them surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished false information with regard to the instruments they used and their mobile numbers.

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in this crime incident.

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following contentions:

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and place certain incidents occurred which resulted in 23 registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam Party as against members of YSR Congress Party members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023.
 F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against these petitioners.
 After change in political party in power witnesses were planted and false evidence is created.
 The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political Government police have unlawfully brought additional penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the petitioners.

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce a judgment as if it is one after trial.

24

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed:

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with 149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. 25

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since the jurisdictional bar has arisen.

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. 26

50. The point that falls for consideration is:

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, 1989 are involved?
POINT:

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. 27 Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is required alone is extracted here:

"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:-

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer 28 incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application."

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could move such applications either before this Court or before the Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers for pre-arrest bail.

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as below:

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or 29
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court."

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, 1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. 1 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 30

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads as below:

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the 31 appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days.
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal."

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction 32 as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the 33 matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to the following:

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3.

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. Reference can be made to the following:

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 2 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 3 Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 4 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 34
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta 5 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 6 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 7 Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur 8 MANU/UP/4595/2024 35 such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was preferred before the High Court.

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this Court in appeal.

9 Supra 1 36

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy @ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, 1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is 10 Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 11 Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 12 supra 2 13 supra 3 37 not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case where on written information police registered a crime and investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the first information report and all the other material collected and take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the 14 AIR 2014 SC 620 38 facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer on receiving such information using his own diligence incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may have been found having connection with the crime. There can be no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the petitioners.

39

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or demerits of the case on either side.

________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 06.01.2025 Ivd 40 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, 5920 and 9083 of 2024 Date: 06.01.2025 Ivd