Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ramireddy Prathap Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8894 of 2025
Between:
Ramireddy Prathap Kumar Reddy
...PETITIONER
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh
...RESPODENT
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 19.09.2025
2
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
3
* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.8894 of 2025
% 19.09.2025
# Between:
Ramireddy Prathap Kumar Reddy
...PETITIONER
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh
...RESPODENT
! Counsel for the Petitioners : V.R.Machavaram
^Counsel for the Respondent : M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor
< Gist:
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Dr. Justice Y.Lakshmana Rao :-- For the convenience of exposition,
this order is divided into the following parts :--
A. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
C. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE
D. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION
E. ANALYSIS
F. CONCLUSION
4
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (2022) 13 SCC 635
2) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1886
3) Bail Appl. No.9589 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025
4) 2025 SCC OnLine AP 22
5) (2000) 3 SCC 557
6) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 72
7) 2003 (2) ALD Cri 712
8) 2010 SCC OnLine AP 1028
9) SPL (Crl.) Nos.6588 of 2025
5
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8894 of 2025
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS') by the Petitioner/Accused No.5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.82 of 2025 of Jaladanki Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 109(1) read with 118, 3(5) and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (for brevity 'the BNS'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2025 at approximately 11:45 hours, at Annavaram Quarry situated within Jaladanki Mandal, a criminal conspiracy was allegedly hatched by the accused persons Accused No.1/Issarapu Venu (r/o Amudaladinne, Kavali Mandal), Accused No.2/Golla Vinod (r/o Iskapalli Panchayat, Allur Mandal), Accused No.3/Damerla Sravan Kumar (r/o Annavaram Village, Jaladanki Mandal), Accused No.4/Atmakuru Rajesh (r/o Kavali Town), and others, with the intent to commit murder of Dagumati Venkata Krishna Reddy, sitting MLA of Kavali Constituency, owing to political enmity. It is alleged that the accused persons, under the direction and instigation of Accused No.5/Ramireddy Prathap Kumar Reddy, former MLA of Kavali, conducted reconnaissance operations over the quarry premises using a drone camera to ascertain the location and movements of the said MLA.
During the said reconnaissance, the complainant Songa Yedukondalu s/o Ramesh, belonging to SC-Madiga community, along with his colleagues 6 Gangaraju and Mahendra, confronted the accused persons regarding their suspicious activity.
3. Upon being questioned, the accused persons allegedly grew hostile and attacked the complainant and his colleagues with knives and stones, uttering threats to the effect that they had come to eliminate both the complainant and the MLA, stating: "Mimmalni, Mee MLA Daggumati Krishna Reddy ni champataanike vachamuraa". The complainant and his associates managed to escape, albeit with injuries sustained during the assault. Subsequently, the accused persons fled the scene on two motorcycles, one bearing Registration No.AP26-BJ-3159 and another Bullet motorcycle, while other co-accused absconded in a car bearing Registration No.AP39-6742. The complainant lodged a report at the local police station at 16:00 hours on the same day. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
4. Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present case is a manifest abuse of the criminal justice system, instituted as part of a larger pattern of political vendetta. It is contended that the police, acting at the behest of the ruling party, have been registered successive false cases against the Petitioner and his associates with the sole intent of harassing political opponents. It is further submitted that on the alleged date of the offence, i.e., 19.08.2025, the Petitioner was present in Bangalore, and the sitting MLA, Daggumati Venkata Krishna Reddy, was later confirmed to be in Amaravathi. The allegation that an attempt was made on the life of the MLA by individuals operating a drone at Annavaram Quarry is wholly fabricated and 7 devoid of any factual basis. The said allegation, is a politically motivated ploy to malign the Petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the report has been deliberately manipulated to falsely implicate him by asserting that the accused persons involved in the drone operation are his followers and acted under his instructions. Such assertions, on their face, appear to be contrived and intended solely to harass the Petitioner as part of a systematic campaign of persecution. It is submitted that the invocation of Section 109 of 'the BNS' is legally untenable, as the essential ingredients of abetment are conspicuously absent from the factual matrix. The injuries allegedly sustained by the de-facto complainant are simple in nature and not inflicted on any vital part of the body, thereby failing to attract the rigour of the penal provision relied upon.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the present case has been foisted upon him in retaliation to certain public allegations made by him, which were also reported in the press, concerning the alleged illegal mining activities and disproportionate assets of the sitting MLA. The Petitioner asserts that the present FIR is a counterblast to those disclosures. It is submitted that the Petitioner's presence in Bangalore on the date of the alleged incident can be conclusively established through call detail records and location data obtainable from the concerned mobile service provider, subject to a fair and impartial investigation.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner avers that Petitioner has not been involved in any economic offence and has no intention to evade the process of 8 law. He is a law-abiding citizen and a permanent resident of Kavali town, having previously served as a public representative in the Legislative Assembly. In view of the prevailing political climate in the State, wherein opposition leaders are being targeted through arbitrary arrests and custodial humiliation, the Petitioner harbours a reasonable apprehension of arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence. It is submitted that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been arrested on 19.08.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation, even if granted pre-arrest bail.
8. It is further submitted that the investigation in the case is substantially complete, and it is reliably learnt that eight witnesses have already been examined. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is neither warranted nor justified. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of him absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre- arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.5 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
9. Per contra, Mr. M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of anticipatory bail, contending that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.5 are grave and pertain to a premeditated criminal conspiracy to assassinate a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly. It is submitted that the Petitioner, being a former MLA and a person of considerable influence, is alleged to have orchestrated the 9 reconnaissance operation through his associates, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 109 of 'the BNS' for abetment. The presence of the Petitioner at the scene may be disputed, but the prosecution relies on the statements of eyewitnesses and the recovery of incriminating digital evidence, including drone footage and mobile communications, which prima facie establish his complicity.
10. Mr. M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the nature of the offence, involving political violence and caste-based intimidation, warrants custodial interrogation to unearth the larger conspiracy and identify other absconding co-accused. The injuries sustained by the complainant and his colleagues, though described as simple, are indicative of a violent attempt to silence dissent and obstruct lawful inquiry. The apprehension of misuse of liberty, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out, especially considering the Petitioner's stature and prior conduct. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.
11. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
12. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?"10
ANALYSIS:
13. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.5 is that, as seen from the report lodged by one Songa Yedukondalu, that the Petitioner being the former MLA of Kavali Legislative Constituency instructed the four persons by names Issarapu Venu (Accused No.1), Golla Vinod (Accused No.2), Damerla Sravan Kumar (Accused No.3), Atmakuru Rajesh (Accused No.4) to kill the present MLA by name Daggumati Krishna Reddy if he comes to the quarry of the present MLA/Daggumati Krishna Reddy.
14. The case was originally registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) read with 3(5), 49 of 'the BNS' of Jaladanki Police Station on 19.08.2025. The Petitioner has filed before the Court the present petition seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail on 22.08.2025. Immediately after one day i.e., on 23.08.2025, the Investigating Officer filed a memo adding Sections 3(2)(v)(va) of 'the SC/ST (PoA) Act'. It has to be pointed out that in the FIR there is no reference that the de-facto complainant states that on account of he belonging to SC (Madiga) community the followers of the Petitioner tried to attack him. In the statement of LWs.9 & 10 they stated that the accused knew that L.W.1 belongs to SC (Madiga) community. Surprisingly, L.W.1 did not state about it. The Petitioner apprehends that he is going to be arrested. Efforts are made by the police to apprehend him.
15. However, the learned Public Prosecutor is in dilemma to submit whether the police have under the legal obligation to arrest the Petitioner. Whereas the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that two Inspectors have been 11 deputed in the office of the Petitioner in Banglore with an intention to nab the Petitioner. The said police officials also restricted the movements of the son of the Petitioner.
16. One of the accused is the journalist, his ID is also filed vide a memo and it is submitted that towards investigative journalism to know about the fact that the present MLA of Kavali Legislative Constituency-Daggumati Krishna Reddy evaded 140 crores of tax to the Government. Therefore, to find out the truth of the said allegation and about the functioning of the quarry the other accused had gone to the quarry on the alleged date of offence.
17. At this juncture it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P.,1 at paragraph No.17 held as under:
"17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain2, at paragraph No.6.1 held as under:
"6.1. The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code."1
(2022) 13 SCC 635 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1886 12
19. The High Court of Kerala in Venu Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala3 at paragraph No.18 held as under:
"18. Apart from the above, in the Constitution Bench decision in Shri.Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], it was observed that "if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or to the Sessions Court, it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for granting such relief. It cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate concerned under section 437 of the Code as and when an occasion arises. Such a course will defeat the very object of section 438.""
20. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Chalivendra Ramakrishna v. State of A.P.,4 at paragraph Nos.48 & 56 held as under:
"48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under the Penal Code, 1860 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 18-A 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 14-A 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.
56. As per sub-section (2) of Section 14-A of 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 CrPC 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 14-A 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 the High Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction 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 14-A 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.3
Bail Appl. No.9589 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 4 2025 SCC OnLine AP 22 13 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 matter the word bail used in Section 14-A 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 14-A 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. State of A.P.3"
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra5, wherein at paragraph No.9 it is held as under:
"9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside."
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dashrath Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh6, at paragraph Nos.8 to 10 it is held as under:
5
(2000) 3 SCC 557 6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 72 14 "8. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that the offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.
9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was doing the household chores. Apparently thus, even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. This issue was dealt with by this Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra1 wherein it was held as below:--
"9. Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside."
10. In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia as the same also provides that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being done on the ground of caste."
23. It is relevant to refer that a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kalasika Prashanta Kumar v. State of A.P7 held at para No.7 thus:
"It is not enough that an offence is committed against a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Bare perusal of this provision shows that the offence should be committed against the person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on the ground that such a person was a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe."7
2003 (2) ALD Cri 712 15
24. It is also relevant to mention that a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Katkam Raajanna v. State of A.P.,8 at para No.7 it is held that fact that victim belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe ipso facto cannot attract Sec.3(2) (V) of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
25. Whereas, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 of 'the BNSS.,' seeking for granting pre-arrest bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala9 wherein at para Nos.7 to 9, it was held as follows:-
"7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case.
8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre- arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court.
9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be 8 2010 SCC OnLine AP 1028 9 SPL (Crl.) Nos.6588 of 2025 16 recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extra-ordinary circumstances."
26. Thus, albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of 'the BNSS', such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioners establishes a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioners neither established a special case nor extra- ordinary circumstance to invoke this Court's jurisdiction for grant of pre-arrest bail directly without approaching the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance.
CONCLUSION:
27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke directly the discretionary power of granting pre-arrest bail at this juncture, as the Petitioner has not approached the learned Sessions Judge at first instance.
28. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned by way of filing an application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Until such time, the Investigating Officials shall not take any coercive steps against the Petitioner.
29. It is clarified that the observations and conclusions recorded herein are confined solely to the limited purpose of disposing of the present Criminal Petition, which was filed directly before this Court without first approaching the learned Sessions Judge.
_________________________ 17 DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.09.025 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o VTS