/ i APHC010393882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE PRADESH AUGUST b.v.l.n.chakravarthi CRIMINAL APPEAL. NO: 551 OF Hiah TT ^ High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated 01-07-2025 'Pa. the ::;rr" "t on hT r^ ' 'P® appellant 0 a,| ,n cnme No.75 of 2025 dated 19-04-2025 of Srl.alahasthl Rura? Station. Timpati District in the event of his arrest. Between: passed Police Sri Ganta Guravaiah @ Guravaiah (as shown in the F.I.R), s/o.Ganta P^aiah, aged about 37 years, R/o.Empedu H/wada, Empedu Village and Post, Snkalahasthi Mandal, Tirupati District. —Appellant/Accused No.5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh of Andhra Pradesh District. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Through SHO. Snkalahasthi Court Rural PS, Tirupati ■■■Complainant/Respondent 2. Victim. -Defacto Complainant/Respondent Counsel for Appellant: Smt. K.Pallavi, representing Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for Respondent No.1: Counsel for Respondent No.2:- The Court made the following: APHC010393882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3368] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 551/2025 Between: 1.SRI GANTA GURAVAIAH ALIAS GURAVAIAH, S/0. GANTA POLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/0 EMPEDU H/WADA, EMPEDU VILLAGE AND POST, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, SRIKALAHASTHI RURAL PS TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. VICTIM, A ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VENKAT RAO RAVULAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: i 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 551 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Smt.K.Pallavi learned counsel representing Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel for the appellant/A5 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant/A5 under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 01.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act at Chittoor. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/A5 would submit that police registered F.I.R. on 19.04.2025 vide F.I.R.No.75 of 2025 of Srikalahasti Police Station for the offence under Section 366A, 342, 354A, 506, 509, 109 I.P.C. Section 5(1) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 9 & 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act and Section 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1 )(r) and 3(1)(w)(i) of SC, ST (POA) Act, 1989 against A1 to A11. The present appellant is arraigned as A5 in the case, he is none other than the father of the victim/complainant in the case. Therefore, the complainant as well as A5 belongs to same community. Hence, prima facie the 3 Offence under the application to the provisions of sc appellant/AS in the case, counsel for the ST (POA) Act has no 4. Learned that he filed °f 2025 under Section of SNSS for ^Ppellant/A5 petition before the Special 438 Cr.P.c. would fudher submit Court vide CrI.M. PNo.321 corresponding to Section The learned Special 482 anticipatory bail. Court refused Hence f‘'(A)(2) of the - judgment of State of application the application vide order dated 01.07.2025. appeal under Section ■ 'P fhe light of the / Shajan Skaria appellant/A5 the preferred the sc, ST (POA) Act Hon'ble Apex Court i Kerala Therefore i 'n the case of and anotheH under Section 438 Cr. the appellant cen maintain P.C. for anticipatory bail. '^ould further disclose that the The victim 19.04.2025. victim does appellant/A5. submit that the F.l. alleged offence R- in the case Would on 14.05.2024. one year report presented by the committed by the was occurred presented the Further, a uot disclose report to police reading of the any overt after on acts 2024 Lawsuit (SC) 704 4 6. The learned trial Court without considering the above facts and circumstances, erroneously dismissed the application under the impugned order. She would further argue that the learned trial Court observed that as per the case diary, A1 and A4 confessed before mediator about the involvement of A5. Confession alleged to be made by co-accused shall not be taken into consideration during the proceedings for bail. It shall be considered only during trial, application by the learned Special Judge is not sustainable in law. Therefore, dismissal of the 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that notice was served on the grandmother of the victim, since victim is not available to the police, as per Section 15 (A) of provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. None appeared for the defacto- complainant. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal. However, he would submit that investigation in the case was concluded, and charge sheet was laid before the Special Court. Arrest of A2, A3, A5 to A11 could not be effected, as they are absconding. 5 9. Learned counsel for the appellant in reply would submit that A6 to A10 were released on anticipatory bail as per orders of this Court in Crl.A.No.410 of 2025 on 07.07.2025 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and another, considered the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2023 i.e., Anticipatory Bail and held as under: “In our opinion, the aforesaid is the only test that the court should 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 although the allegations levelled in the FIR or the complaint do disclose the commission of an offence under the Act, 1989, yet the FIR or the complaint being palpably false on account of political 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 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, powers under SeciiDpA38 of the CrPC cannot be exercised once the contents of the complaint/FIR disclose a prima % 6 facie case. In other words, if all the ingredients for constituting the offence are borne out from the complaint, then the remedy of anticipatory bail becomes unavailable to the accused.’’ necessary 11. In the case on hand, the admitted facts would show that the present appellant/A5 is none other than father of the victim/complainant in the case. They belong to Therefore, same community, prima facie the provisions relating to the alleged offence under the provisions of SC/AT(POA) Act may not be applicable to the appellant. The report presented by the dies not contain victim any overt acts attributed against the appellant/A5, or his role in the offence in any manner. 12. The learned Special Court dismissed the application on the ground that the case diary discloses that A1 to A4 made confessional statements to the police during investigation said statements contain the , and name of the appellant/A5. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant generally, confessional statements made by co-accused would not be considered in bail proceedings. It will be considered during the trial as per section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. 7 13. Therefore, in the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Special Court under challenge is not sustainable in law. On account of peculiar facts attached to the case of the appellant/A5, which would prima facie show that the provisions under SC/AT (POA) Act has no application to the appellant/A-5 application U/s.438 corresponding to 482 of BNSS, 2023, filed Cr.P.C. by the appellant before the Special Court is maintainable, particularly, in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred above. Further, the other circumstances in the case, which wouid show that investigation has been completed, and there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the appellant/A5, he shall be enlarged conditions; no on anticipatory bail, subject to the following (I) The appellant/A5 shall appear before the Special Court 15 days from today and on such appearance, the Special Court, shall release the appellant/A5 on bail, on his execution personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of Judge; , within only) with two the Special 8 (ii) The Appellant/A5 shall not intimidate/annoy the victim or her family members in any manner; (iii) The Appellant/A5 shall not leave the country without permission of the trial Court; iv) If the Appellant/A5 violates any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of the bail. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. The Station House Officer, Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station, Tirupathi District. 3. One CC to Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 6. Two CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2025 \ \ JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 551 OF 2025 ■5 2 9 AUG 2025 ? Co, ^ . Current Section . ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL