Vv APHC010403992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 536 OF 2025 Appeal under Section 14A of the SC & ST (POA) Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to pleased to set aside the Order, dated 01.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.890 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Court, Kurnool, and to enlarge the Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail pertaining to Crime No.48 of 2014 of II Town Station, Kurnool in SC ST SC No. 157 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 323 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1 )(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Between: 1. D.Ravi, S/o.Late Govind Reddy, aged 50 years, OcciBusiness, R/o.Flat No.302, Sai Crupa Apartments, Madhavi Nagar, Nandikotkur Road, Kurnool. (A1) 2. D.Suresh, S/o.Late Govind Reddy, 42 years. Business, R/o.Flat No.302, Sai Crupa Apartments, Madhavi Nagar, Nandikotkur Road, Kurnool. (A2) ...Appellants AND The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati. (By the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kurnool.) ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants: Sri J.Siva Sankara Rao Counsel for the RespondentiAdditional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010403992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3368] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 536/2025 Between: 1.D RAVI, S/0. LATE GOVIND REDDY, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT NO.302, SAI CRUPA APARTMENTS MADHAVI NAGAR, NANDIKOTKUR ROAD, KURNOOL. 2.D SURESH, S/0. LATE GOVIND REDDY, 42 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT NO.302, SAI CRUPA APARTMENTS, MADHAVI NAGAR, NANDIKOTKUR ROAD, KURNOOL. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATI THESTATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.J SIVA SANKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 536 of 2025 J U DG M ENT: Heard Sri J.Siva Sankara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The appellants preferred the appeal under Section 14A of the 2. , Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 01.08.2005 delivered in Crl.M.P.No.890 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Court at Kurnool. The appellants are A1 and A2 in the case. • 3. Perusal of record would disclose that SC/ST S.C.No.157 of 4. 2018, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Court at Kurnool is . coming for trial on 19.06.2025. Schedule was fixed for trial. On that day, the present appellants and some other accused did not attend the Court. Consequently, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against the appellants and some other accused. The appellants and some other accused filed application to recall Non-Bailable Warrants on 28.07.2025. The learned trial Court dismissed the application and 5. 3 remanded the present appellants, A3 and A5 to the judicial custody. Non-Bailable Warrant against A4 was cancelled. Later, the appellants/A1 and A2 and other accused i.e., A3 and A5 filed the application vide Crl.M.P.No.890 of 2025 to enlarge them on bail. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application for the reasons assigned in the impugned order. Hence, challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the pending trial of the case. accused/A1 and A2. 6. During the course of arguments, it came to light that this Court vide order dated 26.06.2015 in Crl.P.No.2532 of 2015 directed the Sessions Judge to consider the bail of the accused with necessary conditions. Accordingly, the learned Special Court vide order dated 30.07.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.591 of 2015 filed by A1, A2, A3 and A5 enlarged the said accused on bail, on condition that they shall execute personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial • Magistrate of First Class at Kurnool. Accordingly, the present appellants/AI and A2 and the other accused i.e., A3 and A5 were enlarged on bail. 7. It is also an admitted fact that the learned Sessions Judge at the time of issuing Non-Bailable Warrants on 19.06.2025, did not forfeit the bail bond of the accused A1 and A2 for breach of the bail conditions. The learned Sessions Judge also did not issue any notice 4 to the sureties forfeiting their bonds as per the procedure contemplated under Section 446 Cr.P.C. corresponding to 491 B.N.S.S. The learned Sessions Judge also did not take any steps for cancellation of the earlier bail order referred above. Therefore, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the earlier bail granted by the learned Special Court is in force. Perusal of the impugned order rendered by the Special Court would disclose that for the reasons not connected with facts of the 8. case i.e., one of the accused laughed at the Court, and that some bar members made request to the Presiding Officer regarding bail applications etc., the request of the appellants to enlarge them on bail was refused, instead of considering whether earlier bail is in existence, the bail bonds of the accused were not forfeited, no notice was issued to the sureties as per Section 446 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 491 B.N.S.S., 2023, apart from merits of the bail application. 9. In the light of foregoing circumstances, the order of learned trial Court is not sustainable either on facts or in law. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The appellants/AI and A2 shall be enlarged on bail. on executing fresh personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court is at liberty to take necessary steps under Section 446 Cr.P.C. with regard to forfeiting of the bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 the earlier bail order, if the accused committed and sureties as per breach of the bail bond, by not attending the Court on 19.06.2025, and impose penalty in accordance with law U/s.446 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 491 B.N.S.S., 2023. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned the order of the learned trial Court dated 01.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.890/2025 is set aside. The appellants/AI and A2 shall be enlarged on bail, on executing fresh personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum ^ each, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Addl.District & Sessions Judge at Kurnool. 10. 1 As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I?- ^ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum- VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. The Station House Officer, Kurnool II Town Police Station, Kurnool District. 3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kurnool, Kurnool District (By Speed Post) 4. One CC to Sri J.Siva Sankara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 7. Two CD Copies BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:14/08/2025 ORDER # if 1 V.AUG 2025 - ^ V^ufTent CRLA NO. 536 OF 2025 VO ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL