IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY. THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 65 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Old Section 14A of The Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024 dated 10.01.2025 on the file of V Additional District Sessions Judge, Nellore. Between: Katta Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Srinivasulu Reddy, Hindu, Male Aged about 46 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant, D.No.3-6-696, Flat No. 302, Raghavendra Royal Fort Apartment Street No. 12, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-500029. ...Appellant/Accused No.18 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. Y L Siva Kalpana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010025222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 65/2025 Between: KATTA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/0 SRINIVASULU REDDY, HINDU MALE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC- CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, D.NO 3-6- 696, FLAT NO. 302, RAGHAVENDRA ROYAL FORT APARTMENT STREET NO. 12, HIMAYATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD-500029. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Accu sed No. 18 seeking to set aside the Order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024 in Crime No. 183 of 2024 on the file of the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and to grant anticipatory bail to him. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, there were land disputes between the family of the Appellant/Accused No. 18 and Katta Ramireddy, Sridhar Reddy and Padmamma. In that view, both the families are using SC Madiga community people as pawns to vie against each other. That being 2. so. 2 ' on 22.10.2024 at 2.45 a.m., all the Accused formed into an unlawful assembly and petrol bottles, went to the cattle shed of the door with sticks, knives and rods and when armed with deadly weapons Defacto Complainant, knocked the the inmates could not come out, the Accused had broke the cement window, and set fire. Accused No.1 hacked the threw the petrol bottles into the room M.Hari Prasad with a knife on his head and Accused No.2 beat him with a rod result said Hari Prasad collapsed. All the Accused also attacked the De Hah Prasad sustained as a facto Complainant with sticks and caused injuries. the complaint given by the De head injury and died instantaneously. Based on in Crime No.183 of 2024 on the file of Chillakur facto Complainant, a case has been registered against all the Accused. Ms.Y.L.Sivakalpana Reddy, learned counsel for the Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Police Station Heard 3. Appellant/Accused No.18 and Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent. Appellant/Accused No. 18 would submit that the 4. Learned counsel for the brothers and the Appellant is a counsel would further submit that, in view of family of the Appellant and the Appellant and his family members are falsely herein and Accused No.1 are Appellant Chartered Accountant. Learned property disputes between the Narapureddy Sridhar Reddy implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel would submit that the one the of offence at the relevant time, as not attract against him. Learned counsel would Appellant was not present at the scene such, the offences alleged do further submit that Accused Nos.22 and 24 were granted bail in the present 3 crime vide Order dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2024 by the learned' trial Judge and Accused Nos.1,2, 4, 6, 9, 19, 23 and 26 were also granted bail vide Order dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024. Learned counsel would further submit that the Appellant herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024 seeking anticipatory bail before the trial Court and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 10.01.2025. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations leveled against the Appellant are false and frivolous. It is submitted that, except the allegation of abetment, there is no allegation against the Appellant. Learned counsel would further submit that, since the Appellant was at Hyderabad at the relevant time, the offence under SCSI Act is not maintainable against him. Since no prime facie case is made out against the for the offence under SCSI Act, the Appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that, the Appellant/Accused No. 18 is a Chartered Accountant at Hyderabad and with a view to tarnish his reputation and to cause humiliation, he was dragged into the present crime. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala and another^ and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors^. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Appellant/Accused No. 18 is the main culprit in the present crime. It is further submitted that, at the instigation of the Appellant, the remaining Accused have ^ 2024 (6) Supreme 321 ^ AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312 4 n committed the alleged offences. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, four other crimes have also been registered against the family of the Appellant and the family of Narapureddy Sridhar Reddy. It is submitted that the Appellant/Accused No. 18 has played a key role in the commission of the alleged offences. It is submitted that there was phone conversation between the Appellant herein and the main Accused, who alleged to have committed the said offences, which shows the participation and instigation of the Appellant in the present crime. There are no tenable grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would disclose that, the anticipatory bail application filed by the Appellant/Accused No. 18 before the trial Court has been dismissed vide Order dated 10.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that, the Appellant not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, as such, no prime facie case is made out against the Appellant either for the offences under BNS under SCST Act. In the absence of prime facie allegations, the Appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that, the case diary shows, during the course of investigation, the Police have collected call data of the Appellant and it shows he had conversation with the main Accused with regard to the commission of the alleged offences and it amounts to participation of the Appellant in the alleged crime directly, though his presence was not there. was or 5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Shajan Skaria’s case (supra), ' held that the Courts can entertain ah application under Sec.438 of the CrPC if 7. there is no prima facie case made out against an individual for offences committed under SCSI Act. In the instant case, it is alleged against the Appellant that there were previous disputes between the Appellant and his men on one side and the victim and his men on the other side from long time. Further, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the call data of the Appellant would show that he had telephonic conversation with the main J Accused all the night on the date of alleged incident with regard to the commission of the alleged offences. As such, the physical absence of the Appellant at the relevant time and place, is not a ground to consider his application for anticipatory bail. Further, it is not the case of the Appellant that he does not have the knowledge of the caste of the victim. In view of the foregoing discussion, in view of the prima facie allegations against the Appellant with regard to the commission of the alleged offences, and the role alleged to have been played by him, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellant are not helpful to consider the application 8. of the Appellant. As the material shows that the Appellant also involved in the other crimes, there is every possibility of threatening the witnesses in the event of grant of anticipatory bail to him at this stage. Though the impugned Order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore is on different grounds, it does not warrant any interference of this Court in this appeal. In view of the 6 ' facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that, though it is not the stage to decide the culpability of the Appellant, in view of the allegations to prima facie attract the offence under the provisions of SCSI Act against the Petitioner, the question of granting anticipatory bail to him, does not arise. The appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand 9. closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// P' ^ ‘ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for trial of Offences under SCs cum- V Additional District Sessions Judge, District. 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class; District. 3. The Station House Officer, Chillakalur Police Station 4. One CC to Smt. Y L Siva Kalpana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravati. 7. Three CD Copies & STs (POA) Act- Nellore, SPSR Nellore Gudur, SPSR Nellore Chittoor District. Pradesh at SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED: 12/02/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.65 of 2025 g 2 0 MAR 2025 S] eo,j ^ ^ Current Seciion . DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL