Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
U Jeevan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 September, 2025
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHCO10068382025
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
EE++JE AT AMARAVAT!
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1461 of 2025 7844 of 2024
2147.2274 3344 and 3454 of 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1461 OF 2025
Between:
1. Smt Vidadala Rajani, W/o Kumara Swamy Vidadala, Aged about 34
years, Former M-lnister, R/o 36-137, Main Road, Purushothama
patnam, chilakaluripet.
2. Nagisetty Jaya Phanindra, S/o Srinivasa Rao Aged about 35 years, R/o
7-130, Gandhipet, Chilakaluripet.
3. Rama Krishna, S/o Anjaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o 2-71
Vemavaram, Prakasham.
...petitioners/A-2 & A-4
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
at Amaravathi, Through S.H.O., Chiiakaluripeta Town P.S., Guntur
D-lstrict.
2. Pilli Koteswar Rao, S/o Pilli Subba Rao, Aged about 38 years, R/o D.No
ll-428 F_ast Mallapali VIllage, Chilakaluripeta.
...Respondents/Defacto Comp[ainant
i -_'' _
ii]
t2
petitI'On under Section 438 of Cr.P.C U/s 482 of BNSS praying that in
r. t
`l-l~ 1he` cl'rcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criml'naI PetI'tiOn,
I
/`
H ,- the `Hj`gh Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petl'tioners/Accused on ba" in
'fr
n J I I l±u
\± ``,\ a
I the .event oftheI'r arrest by the Respondent chilakaluripet Town P.S., Guntur
|rI / +` ~ Di§frict in crime No.39/2025 dated o6.02.2025
~.ng`\J.i..I
i. ;'|
lit ,
•`±-'±. L
lANO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grol,IndS Of Criminal Petl'tion, the High Court
may be pleased to grant interim bail tQ the Petitioners/Accused by directI'ng
the Respondent chilakaluripet Town P.S., Guntur DjstrI'Ct not tO arrest the
Petl'tiOnerS I'n Crime No.39/2025 dated 06.02.2025 till fl'nal adjudication of the
crI'minal petition.
Counsel for the petitioners: sri o Manohar Reddy, SenI-Or Counsel
representing Sri S Dushyanth Redcly
counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Addl-tionaI
Public Prosecut.or assisted by sri A.Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor
counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri V V Lakshmi Narayana
APHCO10492132O24
£BLM_[NAL PETITION NO.I 7844 OF 2024
ffFL+EriE
Betwee n :
K C Krishna Reddy, S/o Late K.C.Rami ReddyI Aged about 64 years, R/o.
D. No. 26/4/1628/A1, Jayan Tej Nilayam, SBI Colony, Melapuram,
HindupurTown and MandaI, Sri Sathya Sai District Andhra Pradesh
u.Petitioner/Accused No.1
'I -i-i
- ,S
1 3
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Dharmavaram I Town Police Station, Sri
satya sai District), Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati.
(Extra copy Served to the Public Prosecutor for the Purpose Of notice tO
the victim (second Respondent) under Section 15A of the Scheduled
castes ;nd the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989)
.u.Respondent
2. Birru Rajasekhar, S/o.B.Rajanna, Aged about 54 years, Occ Agriculture,
R/o. D.No.1-ll-175, Abaadpet, Hindupur, Sri Satya District-515671.
...Respondent/Complainant
t|
petition under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha , Santlita
cr.p.c, 438 of' Criminal Procedure Code 1973 praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to direct the First Respondent Police to enlarge
the petitioner/Accused No.1 (K.C.Krishna Reddy) on bail in the event of his
arrest in connection' with FIR (Crime) No. 103 of 2024 of Dharmavaram I
TcAVn Police Slat.Ion, Sri Satya Sai District, Andhra-Pradesh
lANO: 1 OF2024
petition Llnder Section 482 of`BNSS praying'that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court `may
be pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ Accused No.1,
in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR (Crime) No.103 of 2024 of
Dharmavaram I Town Police Station,, Sri Satya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh
pending disposal of the present criminal petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri O Manohar Reddy, Senior Counsel
representing sri M R K Chakravarthy
iE |\
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 .I Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional
Public Prosecutor assisted by sri A.-Rohit] Assistant Public Prosecutor
counsel for the 'Respondent No.2 : Sri AbduI Saleem
APHCO10102522025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2147 OF 2025
EELE
Betwee n :
U Jeevan Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, Aged about 36 years,R/o
Manesamudram village, Hindupur Town and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai
DI'StriCt.
t1
...petitI-OnewiCCuSed
AND
The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. through Public Prosecutor, HI'gh Court
of Andhra Pradesh, Amarvathi, Guntur District.
...Respondent
PetI'tiOn under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhjta
cr.p.c, old Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 praying that in
the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,
the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in connection with F.I.R.No.21 of2025 dated 18/02/2025 on the
file of the Hindupur Rural Police Station, sri satya sai District for the alleged
offences punishable under sectic;ns 109(1), 115(1),351(2) BNS,
3(1)(s),3(2)(v) SC ST POA ACT
Counsel for the petitioner: sri o Manohar Reddy, Senior Counsel
representing Sri M R K Chakravarthy
5
counsel for the Respondent : Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional
public prosecutor assisted by sri A.Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor
APliCO10107772O25
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2274 OF 2025
Between'.
volupalli Mohan Ranga Rao, S/o.V.Tata Rao, aged 48 years,
occ.Business; R/o.D.No.ll-73-4 Gannavaram, NTR District
...Petitioner/A-5
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Station House Officer, Patamata Police
station vijayawada city, NTR District Rep.by public prosecutor Higll
Court, Amaravathi
...Respondent
petition under section 438/482(1) of BNSS 2O23 praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to release the Petit'loner/A-5 on bail in the event
of his arrest in FIR No.86/2025 Dt. 12-02- 2025 on the file of the Station
House Officer; Patamata Police Station, ViJ-ayaWada City, NTR District,
Andhra Pradesh
counsel for the petitioner: sri o Manohar Reddy, Senior Couhse[
representing Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional
public prosecutor assisted by Sri A.Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor
•'-i
APHCO10125922025
6
eB!na±±!A±±ETITION NO: 2697 OF 2025
EELE
Between :
Karubolu AnI'l Kumar, S/o K. Thammi Naidu, Aged 27 yrs, D.No.17-41,
Kranthi Nagar, Hanumanth waka , near LV Prasad Eye Hospital, Govt
Dairy Farm Visakhapatnam.
...Petl-tjoner/Accused-1
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the s.H.O., of Muwalavanipalem
P.S., Rep., by its public Prosecutor High Court at Amar,avathi.
...Respondent/complainant
petition under section 482 of BNSS (43`8 of Cr.P.C) praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petl|tion, the
High Court may be pleased to grant an Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner/A-1
by directing the s.H.O., of MuwalavanI'Palem P.S., VIsakhapatnam city to
Release the petI|tiOner /A-1 ['n the event of his Arrest jn connection wI'th the
Crime in F.I.R.No.316/2024 dt.12/07/2024.
counsel for the petitioner.- sri o lvlanohar Reddy, Senior CoullSel
representing Sri Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath
counsel for the Respondent: sri MarrI-Venkata Ramana, Additional
public Prosecut.or assisted by srI-A.Rohit, Assistant public Prosecutor
.|
APHCO10158302025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3344OF 2025 .
Eil iF
Between:
Kakani Govardhan Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, Aged about 60 years,
R/o. Podalakur Road, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District
...petitioner/Accused A4
AND
The State of AP, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, lligh Court ofAndhra Pradesh
A{ Amaravathi
...Respondent
petition under section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition-, the High Court
may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused A4 on bail in the event of
his arrest in cr.No.24/2025 on the file of Podalakur Police Station, dated
16.02.2025 under S;ctions 447, 427, 379 r/w. 34 I.P.C, See. 3 PDPPA, See.
21 (1), 21 (4) of MMDARA, See. 120 (b),109, 220, 506 I.P.C and See.3 & 5
of Explosive Substances Act.
IANO: 1 OF2025
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to grant interim anticipatory petitioner/Accused No.4 in the
event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with cr.No.24/2025 on the file
of podalakur Police Station, pend.ing disposal of the main Criminal Petition.
H +-ul
]ANO:2 OF 2025
Petition under sectl'on 528 of BNSS prayI-ng that l'n the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High Court may
be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the relief sought I'n the
Anticipatory Bal'l in CrI.P.No.3344/2025 as llto enlarge the petitioner/Accused
A4 on bail in the event of his arrest in crINo.24/2025 on the file of Podalakur
police Station, dated 16.02.2025 under Sections 447, 427, 379 r/w. 34 I.P.C,
sec. 3 PDPPA, Sec. 21 (1), 21 (4) of MMDARA, See.120 (b),109, 290, 506
I.p.c, see.3 & 5 of Explosive substances Act and u/s. 3(1) (r), 3 (2) (va) and 3
(2) (iil®) of SC-ST (POA) Act" instead of t[to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused A4
on bail in the event of his arrest in cr.No.24/2025 on the file of poda'akur
police Station, dated 16.0212025 under sections 447, 427, 379 I/w. 34 I.P.C,
sec. 3 PDPPA, eec. 21 (1), 21 (4) of MMDARA, See.120 (b),109, 220, 506
I.P.C and See.3 & 5 of Explosive substances Act'l.
IA NO.. 3 OF 2025
PetitI|On under Section 528 of BNSS prayI'ng that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petI-lion,the High Court may
be pleased to receive these additional grounds in I.A.No.1/2025 in
Crl.P. No.3344/2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: sri o Manohar Reddy, Senior Counsel
representing M/s O M R Law Firm
Counsel for the Respondent : sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional
public prosecutor assI-Sled by Sri A.RohitJ Assistant Public Prosecutor
EiEl
y
APHCO10163252025
EFEE] CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3454 OF 2025
Between :
Gunthanala Nagamani, W/o.Burgu]a Sai Prasad, Aged about 37 Years,I
occ, Journalist, H.No.28-799-lB, N.G.O.s Colony, Na.ndyala Nandyala
Mandal and District, Andhra Pradesh-518 501.
.mpetitioner/Accused No.1
AND
1. The. State of Andhra Pradesh, through Represented by Public
Prosecutor, High Court ofAnc!hra Pradesh.
2. Mollangi Elijebeth Rani, W/o. M. Abraham, Aged about 40 Years, Occ
Repoter, R/o.28/759-4-4, N.G.O's Colony, Nandyala Town, Nandyala
Mandal and District, Alldhra Pradesh.
...Respondent/Defacto Complainant
petition under section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023 praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petit'lon, the
High Court may be pleased to direct the enlarged the Petitioner/Accused
No.1 on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.9/2025 on
the file of Police Station, Nandyala -ll Town, Nandyala|Mandal and District.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri O Manohar Reddy, Senior Counsel
representing Dr Geddada Srinivas
counsel for the Respondents: Sri Marri Venkata Ramana,'Addjtjona[
public prosecutor assisted by sri A.Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor `
The Court made the following:
t\
)
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
&
HONJBLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITIONS NOS.1461 of 2025 7844 of 2024 2147 2274
3344 and 3454 of 2025
% 19.09.2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1461 of 2025
# SMT. VIDADALA RAJANI W/O KUMARA SWAMY
.. Petitioner
Vs.
||
S State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor and another,
.... Respondent
I Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.DUSHYANTH REDDY,
Counsel forthe Respondents : 1. VV LAKSHMI NARAYANA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7844 of 2024
# K.C.Krishna Reddy S/o late K.C.Rami Reddy`
I... petitioner
Vs.
S state of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor and another,
.... Respondents
1-e
I counsel for the petitioner: SRI M R K CHAKRAVARTHY
counsel for the Respondents: 1. ABDUL SALEEM
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITIONER NO.2147 of 2025
# u.JEEVAN REDDY S/O VENKATA REDDY
... Petitioner
Vs.
S state of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor,
. . . . Res`pondent
i counsel for the petitioner: SRI M R K CHAKRAVARTHY
counsel for the Respondent : ADDITONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2274 of 2025
# VOLUPALLI MOHAN RANGA' RAO S/O V.TATA RAO
.. Petitioner
Vs.
S state of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor,
. . . . Respondent
I counsel for the petitioner : SRI KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI
counsel forthe Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A.N D
rrfe\
7
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2697 of 2025
# KARUBOLU ANIL KUMAR S/O K.THAMMI NAIDU
... Petitioner
Vs.
S State ofA.P. represented by its pub'Iic Prosecutor,
.... Respondent
I Counsel for the petitioner : SRI RAVURI LEELA SAI SAMPATH
Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3344 of 2025
# KAKANI GOVARDHAN REDDY S/O RAMANA REDDY
... Petitioner
Vs.
S state of A.P. represented by its public prosecutor,
.... Respondent
I Counsel for the petitioner : SRI O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3454 of 2025
# GUNTHANALA NAGAMANI W/O BURGULA -SAI PRASAD
... Petitioner
Vs.
®
S state of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor and another,
.... Respondent
I counsel for the petitioner : SRI GEDDADA SRINIVAS
counsel forthe Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
=Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2025SCCOnLineAP22
2. 2025 SCC Online AP 31
3. 2024 SCC Online AP 5790
4. 2024 SCC Online AP 5322
5. (2020)4 Supreme Court Cases 727
6. 2024 SCC Online SC 2249
7. (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 325
8. (2000) 5 Supreme Co`urt Cases 488
9. (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 440
10. 2012(8) SCC 795
ll. 2025 lNSC 1067
i
HONJBLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
8t .
HONJBLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITIONS NOS.1461 of 2025 7844 of 2024
3344 and 3454 of 2025
Date of Reference Order Pronounced.I 19.09.2025
Submitted for Approval:
SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
/
may be allowed to see the judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
v,
Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
I/
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
APHCO10068382025 lN THE H[GH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATl
(special Original Jurisdiction) [3528]
FRIDAY,THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWE'NTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO-. 1461/2025
Between :
1.SMT VIDADALA RAJANl, W/O KUMARA SWAMY VIDADALA AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, FORMER MINISTER, R/O 36-137, MAIN ROAD,
PURUSHOTHAMA PATNAM, CrllLAKALURIPET.
2.NAGISETTY JAYA PHANINDRAu S/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, R/O 7-130, GANDHIPET, CHILAKALURIPET.
3.RAMA KRISHNA, S/O ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O 2-71
vEMAVA`RAM, PRAKASHAM.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AivlARAVATHl, THROUGH S.H.O.,
CHILAKALURIPETA TOWN P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2.PILLI KOTESWAR RAO, S/O PILLI SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38
yEARS, R/O D.NO ll-428 EAST MALLAPALI VILLAGE,
CHiLAKALURI PETA.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.S DUSHYANTH REDDY -
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(s):
1.V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA
2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.- 7844/2024
Between:
1.K C KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE K.C.RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64
YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 26/4/1628/A1, JAYAN TEJ ivILAYAM, SBI
COLONY, MELAPURAM, HINDUPURTOWN AND` MANDAL, SRI
SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (DHARMAVARAM I TOWN
POLICE STATION, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT), REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT
AMARAVATl. (EXTRA COPY SERVED TO THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOTICE TO THE VICTIM (SECOND
RESPONDENT) UNDER SECTION 15A OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES
AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
1989)
2.BIRRU RAJASEKHAR, s/o.B.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO.1-ll-175, ABAADPET, HINDUPUR,
SRI SATYA DISTRICT-515671.
...RESPONDENT/COJVIPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the petitioner/accused:
1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.ABDUS SALEEM
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
_.:I
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2147/2025
Between:
'1.U JEEVAN REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS,R/O MA-NESAMUDRAM VILLAGE, HINDUPUR TOWN A-ND
MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. through Public Prosecutor,
High Court ofAndhra Pradesh, Amarvathi, Guntur District. I
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2274/2025
Betwee n :
1.VOLUPALLI MOHAN RANGA RAO, S/O.V.TATA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS
OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.ll-73-4 GANNAVARAM, NTR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
.1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House Officer Patamata
police station vijayawada city, NTR District Rep.by pulblic prosecutor
High Court, Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI
counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2697/2025
Between:
1.KARUBOLU ANIL KUMAR, S/O K. THAMMI NA'DU, AGED 27 YRS ,
D.NO. 17-41, KRANTHI NAGAR, HANUMANTH WAKA , NEAR LV
PRASAD EYE HOSPITAL, GOVT DAIRY FARM VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONE,R/ACCUSED
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the S.H.C)., of
Muwalavanipalem P.S., Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court at
Amaravathi.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. RAVURI LEELA SAI SAMPATH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3344/2025
Between:
1.KAKANI GOVARDHAN REDDY, S/O. RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS, R/O. PODALAKUR ROAD, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRIC
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1.THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh At Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.OMRLAWFIRM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
I --`\ 10
1.PU'BLIC PROSECUTOR
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO'. 3454/2025
Between:
1.GUNTHANALA NAGAMANI,I W/O.BURGULA SAI PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC JOURNALIST H.NO.28-799-LB, N.G.O.S
COLONY, NANDYALA NANDYALA MANDAL AND DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH-518 501.
...PET[T]O+NER/ACCUSED
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH REPREsENTED BY
PUBHC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
2.MOLLANGI ELIJEBETH RANI, W/O. M. ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 40
yEARS, OCC REPOTER, R/O.28/759-4-4, N.G.O'S COLONY,
NANDYALA TOWN, NANDYALA MANDAL AND DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.GEDDADA SRINIVAS
counsel for the Resbondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ll
iii
The Court made the following:
REFERENCE ORDER (Per K.Suresh Reddy,J)
These matters came up before us on a reference made by the
learned sindle Judge of this Court, who, while considering the pre-arrest
bail/antici`patory bail applications, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by different petitioners in different crime
numbers, vide Crl.P.Nos.2147, 2697, 2274, 332913344 and 3454 of 2025,
framed the following questions-of law deemed to be of significance and
directed that the same be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for
assignment to an appropriate Division Bench. Pursuant thereto, the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to constitute this Bench to
consider and adjudicate upon the questions so referred viz:-
"Whether, in cases where the alleged offence does not
attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the ActJ) :
1. An application for anticipatory bail ]'s maintainable
exclusively before the Special Court or the Exclusive
Special Court, and the High Court is confined to
exercising appellate jurisdiction only under Section
14A(2) of the Act;
12
®
Or
2. Does the High Court retain its concurrent original
jurisdl-ction under Section 438 of the Cn'mjnal
Procedure Code to ent,ertain such applications?
FACTUAL BACKGROUND :
When all these Criminal Pe{i±ions were listed before the learned Single Judge, the prosecution raised a preliminary objection iegarding main{ainability of said Criminal Petitions contending infer a/,'a that under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1-973 and under Section || 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the application for pre-arrest bail/anticipatory bail is not maintainable before the High Court, in view of the legislative embargo/bar imposed under Section 14A(2) of the Act,1989.
2. ln support of its contention, the prosecution relied on the following Judgments of this Court:
1. Chalivendra Ramakrishn+a Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh1 I
2. Bandi Raghava Reddy Vs. S.tale of Andhra Pradesh2
3. Deepak Kumar Tala V;. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its . , 1 2025 SCC Online AP 22 2 2025 SCC Online AP 31 Le --EiiE]E 13
public Prosecutor and others3
4. Nakka Nagireddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh4
3. Wherein in the afore-cited Judgments of this Collrt, it was held that the High Court refrained from exercising its original jurisdiction to entertain such applications under the provisions of the said Act. During the course of hearing, learned Single Judge while expressing his respectful view contrary to the view taken in the above judgments on the issue of maintainability, relied on the followlng judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India :-
||
1. 'Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others5
2. ShajanSkaria Vs. State of Kerala and another6
4. ln the light of the divergent opinions of the co~ordinate Single Benches of this CoLlrt, the matter was placed before the Honlble the Chief Justice with a request to refer the matter to the Division Bench to resolve the above issue.s. Consequently, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted this Bench to decide the above issues.
5. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, leading the batch would strenuously contend that the judgment of the leamed single Judge of 3 2024 SCC Online AP 5790 4 2024 SCC Online AP 5322 (2020)4 Supreme Court Cases 727 2024 SCC Online SC 2249 14 this Court referred to supra is contrary to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Prathvi Raj Chauhan's case and Shajan Skaria]s case (Supra 5 and 6). Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the HonJble Supreme Court in the Judgment referred in Prathvi Raj Chauhan's case (supra 5) held as follows I:-
"ll.Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., it shall not apply to th6 cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect wh~IIe deciding the review petitions.
12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cases to prevent' misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the'contrary has been raised."
6. In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier J-udgment reported in Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2012 (8) SCC 795]. ln the said Judgment also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
"10. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of
-,--15
anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made -out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of th€ evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed- aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence."
*|
7. ln paragraph 33 of the judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan's case (supra
5) also it was held as under:-
l'33.I would only add a caveat with the observation and-emphasis, that while considering any applicat-ion Seeking Pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests : i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section438 of the Criminal Procedure Co.de, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out-`as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would 16 ® defeat the intention of Parliament."
Further, the learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice Of this court about the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in shajan skaria]s case (supra 6), wherein it was held a.s follows:-.
"45. ln Arnesh .KLImar V. State of Bihar and Another reported in - (2014) 8 SCC 273, this Court laid emphasis on the phrases "Credible information" ancI "reasonable suspicion" as they appear in Section 41 of CrPC and held as follows-.
"5. Arrest brings humiliation, cu'rtails freedom and C.aStS scars forever. Lawmakers know it so also the police. There -IS a battle between the lawmakers and the police and it seems that the police has not learnt its lesson: the lesson implicit and embodied in CrPC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades Of Independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been ` emphasised +ime and again by the courts but has not yielded desired result. poweI- tO arrest greatly conltributeS tO its arrogance SO also the fa-Ilure Of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The - attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is desp-ICable. lt has become a handy tool +o the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.
6. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphaSiSed the need tO maintain a iiE 17 y balance between individual liberty. and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. we believe that no arrest Should be made only because the offence is non-b.ailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the Police officers to do so. The existence of the power t9 arrest iS one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from the power to arrest, the pol-Ice Officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of`an offence made against a person. lt would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the legislature did not find-any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. UItimately, Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177hReport of the Law Commission sLlbmitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC''), in the present form came to be enacted. lt is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest.
XXX XXXXXX 7.3_ ln ith and core olice officer before arrest must uestion to himself` arrest? ls it reall uired? What 18 ® will serve? What ob act it will achieve? lt is onl after these uestions are addressed and one or the other conditions as ,enumerated above is satisfied ower of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine before arrest first the olice officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. A art from this olice officer has to be satisf®led fJurfher that the arrest -IS neCeSSa for one or the more OSeS envisa sub-clauses of clause of Section 41 CrPC.
XXXXXXXXX .If the
10. We areofthe o rovisions of Section 41 CrPC which authorises the olice officer to arrest an accused without an order from a Ma istrate and without a warrant are scru ulousl enforced the wren committed b olice officers intentionall unwittin would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for rant of antici bail will substantiall reduce. We would like to em hasjse that the raclice of mechanicall roducin in the case dia all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 CrPC for effectin arrest be discoura ed and discon{inL]ed."
(Emphasis supplied)
46. The aforesaid discussion indicates that the term 'arrest' appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 should be construed and understood in the larger context of the powers of police to effect an arrest and the restrict®IOnS imposed by the Statute • 4Th 19 9' and the courts on the exercise of such power. Seen thus, it can be said 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. We say so because it is only when a prima facie base is made out that the pre- arrest requirements ?s stipulated under Section 41 of CrPC could be said to be satisfied.
iii. When can it be said that a prilma faCie Case iS made Out in a g'IVen FIR/compla-Int?
47. Prima facie is a Latin term that translates to "at first sight" or 'tbased on first impression". The expression "where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest inia complaint or FIR" shoulld be understood as "when based on first impression, no offence is made out as shown in the FIR or the complaint". This means that when the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under the Act,1989 are not made out upon the reading of the complaint, no case can be said to exist prima facie.
48. As a sequitur, -if the necessary ingred-IentS tO constitute the offence under the Act,19&9 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the allegat:ions levelled in the complaint Or FIR, then in such circumstances, as per the consistent exposition by various decisions of this Court, the bar of Section 18 would not apply and the courts would not be absolutely precluded from granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons.
49. ln our opinion, the aforesaid is the only test that the court should .I_ 20 apply, when an accused prays for antiCiPatOry bail in connection With any offence alleged to have been committed under the Provisions Of the Act,1989. In a given case, an accused may argue that alth.ough the allegations leveled in the FIR or the complaint dO disclose the commission of an offence under the Act,1989, yet the FIR or the compla~Int `being Palpably false On account Of POIitical or private vendetta, the court should consider the plea for grant Of antiCiPatOry bail despite the specific bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 However, if the accused puts forward the case of malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta then -the same 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 jur-ISdiCtiOn under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, poivers under section 438 of the CrPC cannot be exercised once the contents of the complaint/FIR disblose a prima facie case. ]n other words, if all the ingredients necessary for COnStituting the Offence are borne out from the complaint, then the remedy of anticipatory bail becomes unavailable to `fhe accused.
50. The duty to determine prima facie ?xistence Of the Case iS Cast upon the courts with a view to ensure that no unnecessary humiliation is caused to the accused. The courts should not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine if the naffation of facts in the complaint/FIR in fact discloses the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the Act,1989. It is expected of the courts to apply their judicial mind to determine whether,the allegations love-led in the complaint, on a plain reading, \-~.
ii 21satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. such application of judicial mind should be independent and without being influenced by the provisions figuring in the complaintlFIR. The aforesaid role of the courts assumes even more importance when a Prime faCie finding on the case has .the effect of precluding the accused person from seeking anticipatory bail, which is an -Important concomitant of personal liberty of the individual.
51. The aforesaid position is also apparent from a plain construction of the text of Section 18 of the Apt, 1989. The words '{having committed an offence under this Act" denote that it is only when the accusation in the complaint clearly points towards the commission of an offence under the Act,1989 that the bar of `Section 18 vI;Ould apply. The minimum threshold for determining whether an offence under the Act has been committed or not is to ascertain whether all the ingredients which are necessary to constitute the offence are pr~Ima faCie disclosed in the complaint or not. An accusat-IOn Which does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence on a Prima faCie reading Cannot be Said tO be Sufficient tO bring into operation the bar envisaged by Section 18 of the Act,1989 Holding otherwise would mean that even a plain accusation, devoid of the essential ingredients required for constituting the offence, would be enough for invoking the bar under section 18. ln our considered view, such an approach would not be in line with the dictum as laid by this Court while upholding the constitutionality of sections 18 and 18-A respectively of the Act,1989."
22 ®
9. Learned Senior Counsel further WOuld COntenC] that the Hon'ble supreme court in the above judgments has categorically held that where there is no pr,-rr,a fac,'e material exists, warranting arrest of-a person in a complain,t or FIR, the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. {present Section 482 of B.N.S.S, 2023] is certainly main{ainab!e, despite the bar enunciated under s`ection 18A of the Act and as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme ColJrt in the judgment referred in prathvi Raj Chauhan's case (Supra 5). Efigo, if-no pr,'ma fac,'e spells out, then there exists no bar for entertaining an application under section 438 of Code [present Section 482 of B.N.S.Sl 2023]. lt is ohiy when the prJ'ma faC,-e Case iS made Out, the bar Created under Section 18 and 18(A) of the Act would come into force. The Hon!ble Supreme Court has also held that if the accusecl puts forward the case of malicious prosecution on accolmt of the political or other vendetta, then the same can be `cons1-dered only by the High Court in exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of 'the code or in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the Code cannot be exercised once the contents of the complaint/FIR disclose pr,'ma fac,-e case. As such, the bar Created under Section 18 -and 18A of the Act is not applicable where there is no pr,'ma fac,'e case.
L*-_`_ •| 23 1O. ln bothjudgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, forum forfi',-ng an application under Section 438 of the Code [present Section 482 of B.N.S.S, 2023] was not discussed as the same could not arise in both those judgments. The learned Senior Counsel contends that when there is no prJ'ma faC,|e Case made Out aga!'nSt the accused, the |aCCuSed Can invoke I Section 438 of the Code [present Section 482 Qf B.N.S.S, 2023-I only before the HighlCourt and not before the Special Court or ExclusI-Ve Special Court. ll. lt was further contended that since those courts were created under the provisions of the special enactment i.e., the Act and since!the FIR will be lodged' under the provisions of said special enactment i.e., the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, 1989, the said Special Court will not entertain an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. in view. of the bar envisaged under Section 18 and 18A of the Act. As such, the accused has to inevitably approach the High Court seeking Pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code [present Section 482 of B.N.S.S, 2023].
12. On the other hand, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by sri A.Sai Rohit, -learned Assistant 'Public Proscutor contends that the' accused' has to file an application under section _----r 24 ® 438 of the Code only before the Special Court or before- the Exclusive special lcourt. He would further contend that th,e Higll Court' i'sa only having an appellate jurisdiction as per section 14A of the Act and the High Court does not entail its original jurisdiction under Section 14-A of the Act.
13. H6 further contends that the High Court will not, have original jurisdiction as well as the appellate jurisdiction with regard to the same issue. ln support of his contention, he relied on the Order, dated 31.01.2025, of the Honlble Supreme Court wherein the Apex court while dismissing SLP Nos.1497 to 1511 of 2025 held as follows:-
+® ''we .are not inclined to entertain these petitions. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. However, we leave it open for the petitioners to approach the Trial Court/Special Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. forthwith and for a period of twio weeks, no co.ercive measures b± taken against the petitioners. lt is made clear that this interim order is being passed viithout looking into the merits of the matters. The trial Court/Spec-Ial Court would be at liberty to pass an independent order on the applications so filed."
14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the above appeals arose out of concurrent judgment of this C-ourt, referred 1 to 4 supra, as such, he contends that an appli:ation under section 438 Cr.P.C. is I.-` 25 maintainable only before the learned specI'al Court or Exclusive Special Court.
15. On the other hand, sri o.Manohar Reddy, leamed Senior counsel contends that the orders in the above referred judgments of the HonJble Supreme Court are not binding as no ratio was laid down by the Honlble Supreme Court in the above order. ln support Qf hl|S COnt,entiOn: he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY v. ELEPHANTA OIL & lNDUSTRIES LTD., BOMBAY7 wherein it is held as follows:-
"15. lt is to be stated that the Tribunal relied upon its earlier decision by observing that the SLP against the said decision was dismissed by this Court summarily. But, it is weII~settled law that in case where SLP is dismissed without assigning any reason, that order would not constitute a binding precedent. (Re: Alit Kumar Rath v. State of OriSsa (1999) 9 SCC 596 : 2000 SCC (L &S) 192 : 1999 Supp (4) SCR 302.'!
16. He also relied on an another judgment of the HonJble Supreme Court reported in ARNIT DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR8 wherein it is held as follows.I "2O. A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on a conscious consideration of an issue 87 (22oOoOo3) g a:g::mmee cc::# ccaass:ss 23:
26 ® i;annot be deemed`to be a` law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub silentio, in the technical sense when a Particular point of law was not consc-IOuSly determined."
17l ln another Judgment reported in NBCC (INDIA) L-'MITED v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS9 wherein it is held as follows:-
"53. A decision where the issue Was neither raised nor Preceded by any consideration, in state of u.p. v. Synthetics and Chem~ICals Ltd. this court held : (SCC p.163, para 41) "41. ... the Court dicl not feel bound by earlier decision aS it was rendered without any argum&nt, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any Citation Of the authority". .
Further, approving the decision 6f this court in Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, which held that "precedents sub-silentio and without argument are Of nO moment" this Court held that : (synthetics & chem-ICals case, SCC p. 163, para 41 ) "41. ... A decision|which is not express and iS not founded On reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect aS iS contemplated by Article 141 ".
54. The same approach was adopted in Arnit Das (1) v. State of Bihar where it was held that : (S'CC p. 498, para 20) 9 (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 440 27 1 y ''20. . A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on a conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a`law declarled to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub- silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined".
55. ln this context, it is also important to` note that, as an institution, our Supreme Court performs the twin functions of decis-IOn-making and precedent~making. A substantial portion of ourjurisdiction under Article 136 is reflective of regular appellate disposition of decision making. Every judgment or order made by this court in disposing of tJ these appeals is not intended to be a binding precedent under Article
141. Though the arrival of a dispute for this court's consideration, either for decision-making or precedent-making is at the same tarmac, every judgment .or order which departs from this court lands at the doorstep of the High Courts and the subordinate courts as a binding precedent. We are aware of th6 difficulties that High Courts and the subordinate courts face in determining whether the judgment is in the process of decision-making or precedent-making, particularly when we have also declar6d that even an obiter of this Court must be treated as a binding precedent for the High I;ourts and the courts below. ln the process of decision making, this court takes care to indicate the .instances where the decision of the Supreme Court is not to be treated as precedent. lt is therefore necessary tO be Cautious in Our dispensation and State Whether a Particular decision iS tO resolve the dispute between the parties and 28 provide finality or whether the judgment is intended to and in fact declares the law under Article 141."
18. As such, he contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not relied on any ratio and as such, the observation made in the SLP No.1497 to 1511 of 2025 is not applicable. He further contends that When the alleged offence does not attract the provisions of the Act, then an application for anticipa±ory bail is maintainable before the High Court only in terms of the Judgment of th'e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan's case and Shajan Skaria's case (Supra 5 and 6).
19. He `further contends that the High Court will retain its original jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and it also retains the appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A(2) of the Act.
20. We have carefully gone through and meticulously perused the entire material on record and we have also carefully perused the Judgments cited by both counsel for the parties to +the /,-s including the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj ChauhanJs case and ShaJ-an Skaria's case (Supra 5 and 6).
21. At the threshold and before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of the said Act,1989 have been extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the /,'s:
\---, 29 Section 2(bd) ffExclusive Special Court" means the Exclusive Special court established under sub-section (1) of section 14 exclusively to try the offences under this Act;
Section 2(d) "Special Court" means a Court of Session specified as a Special Court in section 14;
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 Procedurel 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 vllithin a Period Of ninety days from the date bfjudgm€nt, 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 appellant had sufficient cause for ilOt Preferring the appeal within the period 6f ninety days -. provided further that no appeil shall be enterta-Ined 30 E=. nm 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.
18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply tO Persons comm-Itting 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 havin.g copemitted an offence underthis 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 Informal-ion Report against any person; Or
b) The investigating 'officer Shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person,
c) AgainISt Whom an accusation Of having POmmitted.an offence under this Act has been made and nO Procedure other than that provided under th~IS Act or the Code shall apply.
(2) The provisions of Section 438 of the Code sfiaII not apply to a case under this Act, notwithdtanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.
22. As already pointed supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of prathvi Raj ChauhanJs case and Shaj-an Skaria's case (Supra 5 and 6) has clearly Stated that When the Pr,'ma faC,-e Case iS not made Out, 31
-'`\ the accused can certainly approach the Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in Shajan SkariaJs case (supra 6). Earlier also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a similar view in the judgment reported in vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr vs State Of M-aharashtra a OrslO. lt is trite to mention here that, in all these three judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, there was no specific issue with regard tot the forum for filing pre-arrest bail application/anticipatory bail application. The said issue never fell for consideration before the Honjble Supreme Court. The only issue in the above judgments before the HonJble Supreme Court was whether an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not in view of the bar prescribed under Section 18 and 18A of the Act and the Honjble Supreme Court of India categorically concluded that, an application under section 438 Cr.P.C.. is maintainable in the event no pr,-ma fac,'e case/material is made out.
23. We have carefully examined the relevant portions of the Act as well as the Code. As seen from the above judgments, it is clear that once the pr,-ma fac,'e case is made out, the bar created under section 18 and 18A of the Act would attract. However, when no pr,'ma fac,-e material exists, the bar 10 2012(8) SCC 795 32 •. `\ envisaged under`section 18 and 18A of the Act would not apply.
24. So far as the forum is concemed, the Special Court and Exclusive special court are created and established under section 2{bd) and Section 2(d) of the Act. Section 2(bd) of the Act, 1989 amply c!efines "Exclusive special court" as the Exclusive Special Corir{ established under Sub-section (1 ) of Section 14 exclusively to try the offences under said Act & Section 2(d) of the Act, defines "Special Court" as a Court of Session specified as a special court in Section 14 of said Act. Ergo, a combined reading of Section 2(bd), 2(d),14,18 and 18A of said Act, entrenches the view tha,I the Specia'l court or Exclusive Special Court, constituted under said Act, will acquire J'uriSdictiOn Only When the Pr,'ma faC,'e Case iS made Out against the accused. once, pr,-ma fac,-e -case is hot made out, the jurisdiction of the special court or Exclusive Special Court pertaining to applications filed for pre-arrest bail/anticipatory Bail will 'be ousted. Moreover, in such event, there is every possibility of the special court or exclusive special court sending the cases to ttle regular Court of Sessions. ln this connection, it is relevant tO extract the provisions of Section 438(1 ) Cr.P.C, wl)ich reads as. under:-
"438. Direction for rehendin arrest:--
rant of bail to erSOn a (1) When 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 of the Court of Session for a direc,lion under this erfq* 33 ¢ section;.........."
As such, the filing of an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. before the special court or Exclusive Special Court would be a futile exercise in the considered opinion of this Court. ln such circumstances, when there is no pr,'ma fac,'e case made out against the accused, the petitioner can approach the High Court seeking pro-arrest bail/anticipatory bail by exercising the power conferred upon the Hon'ble High Court under Section- 438 [present section 482 of B.N S.S, 2023]. As such', the High Court will retain both jurisdictions viz; (i) its original j`urisdiction under Section 438 of the Code t| [present section 482 of B.N.S.S, 2023] and (ii) appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act. So far as the Special Court or Exclusive Special courts are concerned, they will not have powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the bar created unde-r sectI'On 18 and 18A of the Act, which was uphold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan]s case (Supra 5).
25. lt is worthwhile to mention hereunder the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the High Court will not have original jurisdiction as well as the appellate J-uriSdiCtiOn With regard to the same issue. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Order, dated 31'.01.2025, passed in SLP Nos.1497 to 1511 of 34 I.-.
2025, wherein the HonJble Supreme Court of india had dismissed the SLP at the stage of admission. That, as ri'ghtly contended by the learned senior Counsel leading the Batch, the said Order, dated 31.01.2025 in SLP Nos.1497 to 1511 of 2025 passed by the Hon'bie Supreme Court of India, amply discloses that the' SLP was dismissed-by Honjble Supreme court of India summarily. That, it is well-settled law, as enunciated in a cafena of Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, that in case where sip its dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india without assigning any reason, that order woulcl not constitute a binding precedent. The/erore, the same is of no assistance to the learned Addi{iona] Public Prosecutor, is of the considered opinion of this Court.
26. More over, in the recent Full Court Judgment of the HonJble'Apex Cour+-ln Kiran Vs, Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr" [delivered on-01.09.2025], the HonJble Supreme Court, while setting aside the pro-arrest bail granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 13ench at Aurangabad, tlas concurred with the view expressed in Prathvi Raj Chauhan's case and Shajan SkariaJs case (Supra 5 and 6).
u 2025 -lNSC 1067 35 iEEE 27, ln view of the reasons assigned SL,Pta, We answer Points No.1 & 2 of the said Reference by holding that in the event pr,-ma faC,-e Case iS not made out, the application for pre-arrest bail/anticipatory bail is maintainable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the High Court only and not before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under the provisions of the scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes (Pr,evention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Further, the High Court retains its Concurrent as well as Original Jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [present Section 482 of B.N.S.S, 2023] and also under Section 14-A of the Act. Hence, the said Points No.1 & 2 of Reference are answered accordingly. Registry is directed to place this Reference Order along with Criminal Petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, so as to post the same before an appropriate Bench for adjudication in accordance with law.
Sd/-K SRINIVASA RAJU I
ASSISTANT REGJs TRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIO FFICER
One fair copy to the Honourable SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY (for His Lordship]s kind perusal) One fair copy to the Honourable SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA (for Her Laclyship's kind perusal) Tol
1. The Registrar(Judicial), High Court ofAndhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
2. -T h--e --S-Fr55ta-I --I-u-drJ-e--fO-r--Tfi a-I---o`f--Off5fi~c-e-§-~ljfiTd-e-i--I-h-5-S-6-h-6-d-uTe-a -C a s-t-6-§ and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 -Gum-VllI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuram District.
3. One CC to Sri. S Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri. V V Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri. M R K Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Sri. Abdus Sa'eem, Advocate [OPUC]
7. One CC to, Sri. Kiran Tirumalasetti, Advocate [OPUC]
8. One CC {o Sri. Ravuri Leela Sampath, Advocate [OPUC]
9. One CC to M/s O M R Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC]
10. One CC to Dr. Geddada Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] ll. Nine (09) L.R copies
12. The Under Secretary, Union of india, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi
13. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' AssocI'atiOn Li-brary, High Court Buildings at Amaravathi +I
14. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathj
15. The Section Officer, New Filing' Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi .~
16. The SectionSQuriQeJ-, Posting Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Arharavathi-.-+.," I, `J
17. Two CD Copies_L'_i .
Stu Sree ±±_air_ _sLtBfi` 6D HIGH COURT DATED:19/09/2025 D!g!ej Registry is directed to place this Reference Order along with the Criminal Petitions before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, so as to post the same before an appropriate Bench for adjudication in accordance with law REFERENCE ORDER CRLP Mos,1461 of 2025, 7844 of 2024, 2147]22'74,2697,3344 and 3454 of 2025 o€OCT.2025 a:
cu,,ent S®ctlO_n * POST BEFORE APPROPRIATE BENCH