I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 22 OF 2025 Between: 1. Inti Gopala Rao, S/o late Narayana Rao, Aged about 67 years, Occ- Ex. Municipal Chairman, R/o Mallampeta, Bobbili Town and Mandal Vizianagaram District. 2. Chelikani Sunitha Devi, D/o late Venkata Sita Rama Swamy, Aged 65 years, Occ- Retd.,Clerk, R/o Raja Mahal, Bobbilli Town and Mandal, Vijianagaram Dist., 3. Ravu Surya Sridhar Babu, S/o Murali Krishna Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Gullasitaramapuram Village Santhakaviti Mandal, Vijianagaram. District 4. TadivasalaNagaraju, S/o Kanna Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Cultivation R/o Mallampeta RS, Bobbili Town and Mandal, Vijianagaram Dist., ...APELLANT/ACCUSED 1 to 4 AND 1. .The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati through Station House Officer, C I D Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri ...RESPODENT f 2. Smt. Korlapu Lakshmi, W/o.late Simhachalam, Aged about 62 years. Residing at Ramannadoravalasa Village, Bobbili Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPODENT/DEFACTO /COMPLAINANT Appeal under Section 14A(2) of SCS & STS (POA) Act, 1989 R/w 528 of BNSS and Cr.P.C., against the order in Crl.M.P.No.1124 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act - Cum - X Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, Dated 02-01- 2025 arising out of Crime No. 27 of 2024 of C I D Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 430 of BNSS and 389 (1) of CR.PC., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the order by grant bail to the Appellant/Accused No.1 to 4 in Crl.M.P1124 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act - Cum - X Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, Dated 02-01-2025 Counsel for the Appellants: SRI B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No.2: SRI PHANI TEJA CHERUVU Counsel for Respondent No.1: Ms. K.PRIYANKA LAKSHMI, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : APHC010018932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 22 of 2025 Between: Inti Gopala Rao and Others ...APELLANT(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Apellant(S): 1.B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.PHANI TEJACHERUVU ...RESPODENT(S) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1124 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, arising out of Crime No.27 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Vizianagaram. 2. Heard Sri B.Sudhakar Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellants, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/ State and Sri Phani Teja Cheruvu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that the Appellants herein are arrayed as A.1 to A.4 in the above Crime and that basing on the very same complaint twice, the authorities enquired into the matter &nd i concluded that no contra evidence is available to proceed in the criminal against the Appellant No.1/ Petitioner No.1. Further, the Appellants/A. 1 to A.4 have filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail before the trial Court and the same was dismissed by way of impugned Order. Assailing the said Order, Appellants preferred the present appeal. Learned the Trial Court has erroneously rejected the bail to the case counsel would submit that appellants merely on the- fact that respondent No.2 invoked the criminal law directly through police with a delay. Further, the present criminal against the Petitioners to harass them CID case has been lodged on account of political vendetta. Learned counsel would submit that as per the report filed by the SDPO Bobbili, no iota of evidence of material is available supporting the version of respondent No.2 against the Appellants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the de facto Complainant filed an injunction before the Trial Court stating that she has nothing to do with the complaint and has not given any complaint against the Petitioners. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that basing on the report given by L.W.11 before the Lokayukta, this case has been registered by CID. Further, as observed by the Learned Trial Judge, Section 409 IPC has no application to the facts of the present case since Appellant No.1/Petitioner No.1 is not a public servant. Coming to the case of the Appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4, they are not shown as accused in this case as on this date. Hence, the ■ question of apprehensionf their arrest does not arise. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders directing the police to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar'' with regard to the case of Appellant No. 1/Petitioner No.1 is concerned. Further, this appeal may be disposed of since Appellants 2 to 4/Petitioners 2 to 4 are not shown as Accused as on this date. 7. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the impugned order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge observing that Section 409 IPC has no application to the facts of the case as against Appellant No. 1/Accused No.1, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to direct the Police to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra). So far as the case of Appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 are concerned, as rightly submitted by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor when they shown as accused as on this day, apprehension of arrest does Hence, this appeal is dismissed as against the Appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. are not not arise. ^(2014) 8 see 273 Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE eOPY// SEeTION OFFieER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act - Cum - X Additional District Judge at Vizinagaram, District. (With records If any) 2. The Station House Officer, C I D Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri 3. One CC to SRI. B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. OneCCto SRI. PHANI TEJE CHERUVU Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati 7. Three CD Copies SD vna HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.22 of 2025 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL