• \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 579 AND 588 OF 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 579 OF 2025: APHC010445342025 Appeal under Section 14 A (2) of SC & ST (POA) Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside Order, dated 13-08-2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1361 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) ACT-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and enlarge the petitioner/Accused No. 11 bail in Crime No.24 of 2025, on the file of Podalakuru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. Between: on Yenugu Sasidhar Reddy, S/o.Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 46 R/o.Thoderu Village, Podalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.11 years. AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. ...Respondent 2. India Padma, W/o.Late Pullaiah, aged about Major, R/o.Vardapuram Girijana Colony, Tathiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. t ( 3. Nimmala Prasanna, D/o.Ankaiah, aged about Major, R/o.Vardapuram Girijana Colony, Tathiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Rapuru Suresh, S/o.Late Subramanyam aged about Major, R/o.Vardapuram Girijana Colony, Tathiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...RespondentsA/lctims Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Neelothpal Ganji, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4:None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.3:- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 588 OF 2025: APHC010449952025 n-WT 0^ Appeal under Section 14 A (2) of SC & ST (POA) Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the Appeal by setting aside the impugned Order, dated 25-08-2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1402 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) ACT-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District in Crime No.24 of 2025 of Podalakuru Police Station, and grant bail to the petitioner/appellant/Accused No. 12. Between: Biradavolu Srikanth Reddy @ Sreekanth Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, aged 55 years, Reddy by Caste, 304-A, B-Block, Pavani Tower, SRK School, Magunta Layout of Nellore of SPSR Nellore District. Now residing at Flat No.214, C Block, Anuhr Nature Walk Township, Manikonda, Hyderabad of Telangana State. Road No.25, Alkapur ...Petitioner/Accused No.12 ( AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., its Public Prosecutor, Court, Amaravathi, Rep,, for the Station House Officer, Podalakur, P.S., Nellore District. 2. M.Balaji Naik, District Mines and Geology Officer(FAC), SPSR Nellore. AP High 3. India Padma, W/o. Pullaiah (late), Varadhapuram Girijana Colony, Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Nimmala Prasanna, D/o.Ankaiah, aged about 33 years, Varadhapuram Girijana Colony, Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 5. Rapuru Suresh, S/o.Subrahmanyam (late), aged about 28 years, Varadhapuram Girijana Colony, Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kunuku Raja Sekhar Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Neelothpal Ganji, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4:None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 5:- The Court made the following: ( APHC010445342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 579/2025 Between: Yenugu Sasidhar Reddy ...APELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Apellant: 1.V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPODENT(S) 2 APHC010449952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 588/2025 Between: Biradavolu Srikanth Reddy @ Sreekanth Reddy ...APELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Apellant: 1.KUNUKU RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR This Court made the following 3 c COMMON JUDGMENT: Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2025 has been preferred under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act’) seeking to enlarge the appellant-accused No. 11 on bail by challenging the order dated 13-08-2025 in Criminal M.P.No. 1361 of 2025 in Crime No. 24 of 2025 of Podalakuru Police Station, on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act - cum - V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short ‘the learned Special Judge’) whereby and whereunder the bail sought by the appellant-accused No. 11 was dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 588 of 2025 has been preferred under Section 14 A (2) of ‘the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act’ seeking to enlarge the appellant- accused No. 12 on bail by challenging the order dated 25-08-2025 in Criminal M.P.No. 1402 of 2025 in Crime No. 24 of 2025 of Podalakuru Police Station, on the file of the Court of ‘the learned Special Judge’ whereby and whereunder the bail sought by the appellant-accused No. 12 was dismissed. These two criminal appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment as they arise out of one crime although the appellants are different. FACTUAL MATRIX: Respondent No. 2, by letter dated 07.12.2023, lodged report against the persons involved in illegal quarrying in an extent of Ac. 31.71 cents in survey 2. 3. 4. 4 Nos. 697, 699, 751/2, 759/1, 759/2, 924 & 925 of Tatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The case of prosecution, as detailed, has its genesis from a report given by the de-facto complainant, M. Balaji Nayak District Mines and Geology officer, Nellore, vide Letter No.1872/M/2015 dated 14.02.2025. An FIR was registered as a case in crime No.24 of 2025 dated 16.02.2025 under Sections 447, 427, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’), Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short ‘PDPP Act’), and Sections 21 (1) and 21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’), against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. It was mentioned that Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, former Minister, and the present MLA of Telugu Desam Party from Sarvepalli Legislative Constituency started conducting a Dharna at the said quarry on 16.12.2023 with a protest against illegal quarrying operation. Dharna went on till early hours of 19.12.2023. Following evacuation of the Dharna, a visit was made to the quarry site and found that no quarry operations had been carried out since 15.12.2023, based on a representation filed by Y.Vidhyakiran as per the directions of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The quarry was non-operational subsequently. The District Vigilance Squad (DVS) team and technical personnel of the office concerned kept a tab on the site. Later, it was found that some of the residents, purportedly supported by the then ruling party members, had started illegal quarrying activities forcibly. On a follow-up visit, and with inquiry 5. 5 r from Village Revenue Officers (VROs) and residents, it was determined that illegal quarrying of Quartz and Feldspar minerals was done and being exported to China through Chennai Port. Notices were sent under Rule 26 (1) and (ii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 1966’) to Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy. Aggrieved by the lodging of the FIR, Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Petition No. 1950/2025 for quashment of proceedings. A learned single judge of this Court directed the respondent authorities to follow Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) (equivalent to Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.’), as per the guidelines given by the Flon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and also restrained the police from taking coercive action against Accused No.1 pending further orders. On 28.02.2025, the Investigating Officer submitted an Alteration Memo in crime No.24 of 2025 before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate mentioning that during investigation, recording of statements of eleven witnesses video-graphed, the site of offence was visited, Mahazar was drawn and signed by mediators, and photo and video evidence were gathered. On 27.02.2025, the statement of LW-11, Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, was taken, in which he incriminated further offences under Sections 120-B, 109, 290, and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Accordingly, Accused Nos. 4 to 10 were included in the list of accused. Thereafter, on 31.03.2025, another Alteration Memo was submitted by the 6. 7. was 6 Investigating Officer to the Jurisdictional Magistrate adding the provisions viz., Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (2) (va) and 3 (2) (iii) of ‘the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act’ based on statements of LW-13 to LW-15. 8. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2025 was added as accused No. 11 basing on the statement of L.W.22-Poreddy Nagendra Reddy on the ground that the alleged quartz material was dumped in the fields of the appellant situated in survey Nos. 135 and 137 of Thanderu Village. The appellant-accused No. 11 was arrested on 19-07-2025. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 588 of 2025 was added as accused No. 12 basing on the confessional statement of accused No. 11. The appellant-accused No. 12 was arrested on 22-07-2025. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED Nos. 11 & 12: Learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants are 9. innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offences, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the appellants are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the appellants. The appellants undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the appellants. 10. It is further submitted that the appellants have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the 7 process of law. The appellants have co-operated with the investigation so far and assure continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the appellants would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the appeals. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 11. Mr. Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the appellants on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the appellants. The prosecution further apprehends that the appellants, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the appellants absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the appellants do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the appeals. Even though notices were served on respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2025, nobody appeared for them, respondent No. 3 was not served in spite of granting sufficient time. Criminal Appeal No. 588 of 2025, notices on respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were 12. Notice on In 8 served but no notice was served on respondent No. 5 in spite of granting sufficient opportunities. Therefore, this Court was obliged to request Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi, learned counsel, to assist the Court as amicus curiae for the unofficial respondents in the two criminal appeals. Heard the arguments of the learned amicus curiae for the unofficial respondents. 13. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 14. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail? ANALYSIS: On the statement as L.W.11 given by the former minister and present MLA of Sarvepalli Legislative Constituency, the appellant, the former minister and MLA of Sarvepally Legislative Constituency is arraigned as accused in this case. Therefore, there is legal and political tussle in between two political leaders of different parties in one constituency. The accused-political leaders contend that due to political vendetta, they were falsely implicated in this case. Whereas, L.W.11-political leader alleges that accused had caused and 15. perpetrated illegally to excavate the minerals worth of more than one hundred crores. 9 16. In the statements of L.Ws.13 to 15, the names of the appellants are not mentioned, nor is there any allegation that they intentionally insulted or intimidated members of the Scheduled Tribe community. The allegations made against the appellants are bald to attract the provisions of ‘the SC & ST Atrocities (POA) Act’. Indeed, to attract the provisions of ‘the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act’, scheduled offence ought to have been committed against SC/ST person with the knowledge of the victim’s caste, applicability requires proof of caste-based intent, not just the act itself. The apprehension of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that appellants may tamper with the evidence or witnesses is not a ground to refuse bail inasmuch as they are vague in nature. There is no allegation that before their arrest, they had threatened any witness or intermeddled with the investigation. The appellants contend that a political vendetta was taken against them at the behest of the sitting M.L.A. of the constituency concerned. By judgment dated 18-08-2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2025, this Court enlarged accused No. 4 on bail with certain stringent conditions. Accused No. 4 is alleged to be the main kingpin in this case. He was granted bail. Accused No. 6 was also enlarged on bail. The appellants are accused Nos. 11 and 12. Their role has come into light only based on the confession of other accused. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Its 17. 10 P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh\ at Para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under: To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala iTdes but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. Howeve,r political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on , record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the court is convinced more than prime facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court mav bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. 27. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: (iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible bv virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co- 53. accused. ■'2025 see Online Sei157 11 Accused No. 11 was arrested on 19-07-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 63 days. Accused No. 12 was arrested on 22-07-2025. He has been in Judicial custody for the past 60 days. Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi, learned amicus curiae, fairly conceded that there is nothing on record, especially in the statements of the witnesses who belong to S.C. community, to show that the appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12, on account of the witnesses belonging to S.C. community only, have committed the alleged offences under the provisions of the 'SCs & STs (POA)Act'. CONCLUSION: Considering the gravity and the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, stage of the investigation and the period of detention undergone by the appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on bail with the following stringent conditions: 18. 19. (i) The appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12 shall be enlarged on bail on their executing each a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, if they are not required in any other crime; (ii) The appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12 shall co-operate with the investigating officer and shall furnish necessary information and record which is legally permissible under law; 12 (iii) The appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana without permission from the Investigating Officer; express (iv) The appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12 shall handover their passports to the investigating officer till the conclusion of trial; (V) The appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12 shall not commit any offence like the offence of which they are accused or suspected of commission; (Vi) The appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12 shall hot directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted of the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and (vii) The appellants-accused Nos. 11 and 12 shall make their presence before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 AM and 5.00 PM till the filing of Charge sheet. 20. Both the criminal appeals are accordingly allowed. SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) ACT- Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. (With records if any) 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The Station House Officer, Podalakuru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. c 4. The Superintendent, District Jail, SPSR Nellore District. (By Speed Post) 5. One CC to Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Kunuku Raja Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 9. Three CD Copies BSV PRK BSV HIGH COURT DATED:19/09/2025 COMMON JUDGEMENT CRLA NOS. 579 AND 588 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS