Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Nakka Pullaiah Alias Gandhi 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:
ď‚· 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
23registration 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.
ď‚· F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against
these petitioners.
ď‚· After change in political party in power witnesses were
planted and false evidence is created.
ď‚· 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
28incharge 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
31appellant 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