APHC010299902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE^|J^§] ATAMARAVATI MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.389 of 2025 Appeal under Section 14 A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, aggrieved by the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.298 of 2025, dated 30.05.2025 before the Special Judge for trail of Cases Under SCs & STs (POA) Act - Cum - VI Additional Sessions Court at Kurnool, and to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused A8 and A14 on bail in Cr.No.40/2025 on the file of Chippagiri Police Station, dt. 27.04.2025 wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 49, 61(2)(a) r/w Sec. 3(5) of the BNS 2023 and Sec. 3(1 )(r), 3(1 )(s) and Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Between: 1. Beper Ghousia, Wo. L. Gangadhar Lodi, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Kasapuram Road, Guntakal Town, Ananthapur District. 2. Katrimala Sowbhagya, W/o. Katrimala Peddanna @ Boya Peddanna, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Chippagiri Village & Mandal, Now residing near Ankalamma Temple, Guntakal Town, Ananthapur District. ...Petitioners/A8 & A14 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer, Chippagiri Police Station, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P Narasimhulu Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010299902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 389/2025 ¥ Between: 1.BEPER GHOUSIA AND ANOTHER, WO. L GANGADHAR LODI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R O. KASAPURAM ROAD, GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 2.KATRIMALA SOWBHAGYA, , / W/0. KATRIMALA PEDDANNA @ BOYA PEDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/0. CHIPPAGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NOW RESIDING NEAR ANKALAMMA TEMPLE. GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ...APELLANT(S) AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHIPPAGIRI POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURTAT AMARAVATI. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.PNARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Accused Nos.8 and 14 seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.298 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool and to release them on bail. »; 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 27.04.2025 at 14.00 hours near Railway under bridge, Guntakal road, Chippagiri Mandal, the followers of Vykunta Prasad, Vykunta Mallikarjuna, Arikeri Mallesh @ Mallaiah and Konda Ramanji in furtherance of their common intention and abetment, dashed the vehicle of the de facto complainant with a Tipper Lorry bearing % No.AP 03 Y 1899 and attacked with hunting sickles and iron road and hacked the father of the de facto complainant on his head, due to which he died and they also beat the defacto complainant and one Govindu due to which, they sustained bleeding injuries. Heard Sri P.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the Appellants/Accu sed Nos.8 and 14 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. Learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that the names of the Appellants do not find place in the FIR. Learned counsel would further only based on the confession of Accused No.1, the Appellants were added in the present crime. It is submitted that, in view of the subsistence of civil disputes between the parties, the Appellants were falsely implicated in the present case through they were not present at the scene at the relevant time. Learned counsel would further submit that Appellant/Accused No.8 has small kids and she has to look after them. Appellants are innocents and they have been in judicial custody since 02.05.2025. Hence, prayed to release the Appellants on bail. 3. 4. . 3 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and would submit that a mob of people attacked on the deceased. It is submitted that there were disputes between Accused No. 15 and the deceased and that 5. Accused No. 15 hired the remaining Accused and they all committed the alleged offences. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that Accused No.6 is the husband of Appellant/Accused No. 14. It is submitted that 11 witnesses are examined. There are no tenable grounds to consider the present appeal for grant of bail. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is sustainable or not? POINT: Considering the submissions and as seen from the material on record, admittedly, there were disputes between Accused No. 15 and the family of de facto complainant. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Appellants, there is no material to show the presence of the Appellants at the relevant place and time. 7. Further, the FIR does not disclose the names of the Appellants and they were subsequently added in the present crime. It is alleged against the Appellants that they provided financial assistance to the other Accused for the commission of the alleged offences. The Appellants are women and it is not the stage to decide the culpability of the Appellants by accepting the allegations leveled against them. Further, the Appellants 4 have been in judicial custody from 02.05.2025. The learned trial Judge passed the impugned order dismissing the application of the Appellants for grant of bail on the ground that the Appellants assisted the other Accused financially to commit the alleged offences. Since there i the alleged financial assistance and criminal IS no material to show conspiracy of the Appellants with the other Accused, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Order dated 30.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.298 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool and Appellants/Accused Nos.8 and 14 are granted bail, on the following conditions: i. Appellants/Accused Nos.8 and 14 shall be released on bail on their executing personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands only) each with two sureties for £ the satisfaction of the trial Court, ii. On release, the Appellants/Accused Nos.8 and 14 shall before the Station House Officer concerned a like sum each to appear once in a week i.e., on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m till filing of charge sheet, iii. The Appellants are directed not to hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 5 It is made clear that the Appellants shall scrupulously comply IV. with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER rn To 1. The Special Judge for Trail of Cases Under SCs & STs (PoA) Act - cum - VI Additional Sessions Court, Kurnool, Kurnool District. The Station House Officer, Chippagiri Police Station, Kurnool District. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Adoni, Kurnool District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravafhi[OUT] One CC to Sri P Narasimhulu, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. TK sree r \ HIGH COURT DATED;30/06/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA No.389 of 2025 0 t JL'l 2125 ★ * o 'IC> m fo ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL