APHC010475732025 S'"' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI /y iS'd I m.m m c • ifi. im a ft Vv-d. •Pi ■ n ■ s\ ■i WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9408 OF 2025 AND 9409 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9408 OF 2025: Between; 1. Anasuyamma, W/o. Govindappa, aged about 57 Years, R/o. D.No. 10- 62, Nadamanthram Village, Mudaramdoddi, Chittoor District. 2. Nagendra Babu, S/o. Govindappa, aged about 32 Years, R/o. D.No. 10- 62, Nadamanthram Village, Mudaramdoddi, Chittoor District. 3. Govindappa, S/o. Venkatesh, aged about 61 Years, R/o. D.No. Nadamanthram Village, Mudaramdoddi, Chittoor District. 4. Chiranjeevi, S/o. Govindappa, aged about 34 Years, R/o. D.No. 10-62 Nadamanthram Village, Mudaramdoddi, Chittoor District 10-62 ...Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Through V.Kota Urban P.S, District. Chittoor ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/ Accused No.1 ,2, 4 & 5 in the event of their arrest in F.I.R. No. 127 of 2025, dated 03.09.2025 on the file of V.Kota UPS, Chittoor District. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri B.V.Durga Prasad, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. APHC010475752025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9409 OF 2025 Between: 1. Chandana @ R.Chandrakala, D/o. E.Rama Krishna Moorthy, aged about 24 Years, R/o. Nadamanthram Village, Mudaramdoddi, Chittoor District 2. Krishnamurthy Gowdu @ E.Ramakrishnamoorthy, S/o. E.Rame Gowdu, aged about 61 Years, R/o. D.No. 10-94, Nadamanthram Village, V Kota Mandal, Mudaramdooddi, Chittoor District. Karthik 3. Eggidi Ramakrishnamoorthy Kartheek, S/o. Ramakrishnamoorthy, aged about 26 Years, R/o. D.No. 10-94, Nadamanthram Village, V.Kota Mandal, Mudaramdooddi, Chittoor District. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3, 6 & 7 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Through V.Kota UPS, Chittoor District. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/ & 7 in the event of their arrest in F.I.R. No. 127 of 2025, dated 03.09.2025 the file of V.Kota UPS, Chittoor District. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri B.V.Durga Prasad, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. The Court made the following Common Order: Accused No.3, 6 on APHC010475752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9408/2025 Between: Anasuyamma and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9409/2025 Between: Chandana @ R Chandrakala and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.B.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Both these two Criminal Petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order inasmuch as the crime involved in these cases are one and the same. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.9408 and 9409 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused for grant pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime Nos. 127 and 128 of V Kota Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 79, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and 3(1 )(r), 3(1 )(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the PoA Act’). 2. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION The case of the prosecution is that on 03.09.2025 at about 4:00 P.M., Accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly abused the complainant’s maternal aunt using caste-based slurs and assaulted her, causing minor injuries. Upon receiving the information, the complainant, along with his father, rushed to the Later, at about 12:30 P.M. near Reddappa’s poultry shed. Accused Nos.1 to 7 allegedly wrongfully restrained the complainant and his family members, abused them again using caste-based slurs, assaulted them with hands and kicks, and criminally intimidated them with dire threats. 3. scene. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Sri B.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship 4. 3 Dr.YLRJ Crl.P.Nos.9408 and 9409 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 6. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that without approaching the learned Sessions Judge of first instance, the Petitioner filed this Petitions directly before this Court, such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C and Another v. State of Kerala and Another'. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos, 6588 of 2025, dated 08,09.2025, Dr.YLR, J CrI.P.Nos.9408 and 9409 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?" 8. ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record, the petitioners have approached this Court directly seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a counter blast against the case lodged by the petitioners, the de-facto complainant lodged the present In the present FIR there are same allegations relating to certain sections attracting to the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC/ST PoA Act’). Though this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction, it can be exercised only when the petitioner establishes a special case or an extraordinary circumstance. A reference is pending before this Court with regard to the application of Section 14(A) of ‘the SC/ST PoA Act.,’ to the cases instituted without approaching the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Accused No.3 suffered fracture injuries to his leg. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Accused No.3 suffered injuries in the hands of the de-facto complainant and his followers. case. 10. An application has been filed under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS.,’ seeking for granting pre-arrest bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.9408 and 9409 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 r such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court Mohammed Rasal.C supra wherein at para Nos.7 to 9, it was held as follows:- in “7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extra ordinary circumstances. ” case. as a ) I may 11. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS’, . such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the 6 Dr.YLRJ Crl.P.Nos.9408 and 9409 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 Petitioners establishes a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the Petitioners neither established a special circumstances extra-ordinary circumstance. nor CONCLUSION: 12. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have not approached the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance, this Court is not inclined to grant to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move an appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of one (03) week from the date of receipt of this order. Until such time, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge is required to dispose of such pre arrest bail application on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, V.Kota Urban Police District. 2. One CC to Sri B.V.Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies Station, Chittoor GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED: 17/09/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP Nos. 9408 OF 2025 & 9409 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS