APHC010533662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 10376 & 10377 of 2025 Crl.P.No.10376 of 2025 Between: 1.MANNEM RAVI KUMAR, S/O. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 10-30-7/3A JANATHAPETA SOUTH, INDIRA NAGAR, KAVALI TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. THROUGH S.H.O JALADANKI PS SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, 2.SONGA YEDUKONDALU, S/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.DR G V RAVI 3.LEGAL AID 2 Crl.P.No.10377 of 2025 Between: 1.ATMAKURI RAJESH, S/O. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,KAVALI TOWN SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. THROUGH S.H.O JALADANKI PS SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, 2.SONGA YEDUKONDALU, S/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: There two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as these two Petitions arise out of same crime but for different Accused. 2. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 & 6 respectively for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.82 of 2025 of Jaladanki Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3 109(1), 118(1) read with Section 3(5), 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. The allegation against Accused No.6 is that, being associated with the former MLA, Ramireddy Prathap Kumar Reddy, he aided and abetted Accused Nos.1 to 4 in conducting recce at Annavaram Quarry with the intention to kill the sitting MLA, Sri Dagumati Venkata Krishna Reddy. It is alleged that his name surfaced during the confession of Accused No.5, who stated that Accused No.6 was also involved in the conspiracy. Beyond this alleged association, no direct role or overt act has been attributed to Accused No.6 in the commission of the offence. 5. On a careful consideration of the material placed on record, it is evident that the name of Accused No.6 does not find place in the original FIR lodged by the de-facto complainant. His implication came only at a later stage, based on the alleged confession of a co‑accused. It is further noted that Accused No.6 was not present at the scene of offence on 19.08.2025, nor is there any allegation of his participation in the attack upon the complainant and his colleagues. No overt act has been attributed to him in the FIR or in the mediators’ report. The prosecution has not produced any independent material, such as witness statements, to establish his nexus with the incident. 4 6. The alteration of sections of law to include offences under the SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 was done without any specific allegations against Accused No.6. The FIR does not disclose any caste‑based abuse or conduct attracting the provisions of the said Act. In the absence of prima facie material, the invocation of these provisions against Accused No.6 cannot be sustained. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is a daily wage worker, the sole breadwinner of his family, and has a fixed place of abode. He has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and trial, and is willing to furnish sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. In such circumstances, his custodial interrogation is not warranted, and his continued apprehension of arrest would result in undue hardship. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that Accused No.6 is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition No.10376 of 2025 is allowed so far as Petitioner/Accused No.6 is concerned with the following conditions: i. In the event of the arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall cooperate with the Investigation Officer and shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required. 5 iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not commit or indulge in similar offences in future. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave the State of A.P., limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. 9. The allegation against Accused No.4 is that he, along with Accused Nos.1 to 3 and others, conducted recce at Annavaram Quarry with a drone camera to ascertain the movements of Sri Dagumati Venkata Krishna Reddy, MLA, Kavali, with the intention to kill him due to political rivalry. When questioned by the complainant and his colleagues, Accused No.4 allegedly attacked them with knives and stones, causing injuries, and openly declared that they had come to kill the MLA. His active participation in the assault and conspiracy is specifically attributed in the complaint. 10. On a careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court finds that there are specific and direct allegations against Accused No.4 regarding his presence at the scene of offence and his active role in the attack upon the complainant and his colleagues. LWs.1 to 8, who are cited as eyewitnesses, have categorically spoken to the participation of Accused No.4 in the commission of the offence. The statements of these witnesses prima facie establish his involvement. It is further noted that Accused No.4 has a rowdy‑sheet opened against him, indicating his antecedents and habitual 6 involvement in unlawful activities. Grant of anticipatory bail to such an accused, who has a history of criminal conduct, would not be in the interests of justice and may hamper the investigation. 11. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, the presence of multiple eyewitnesses, the antecedents of the petitioner/Accused No.4, and the seriousness of the offence alleged, particularly the conspiracy to assassinate a sitting MLA, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4. Hence the Criminal Petition No.10377 of 2025 is dismissed against Petitioner/Accused No.4. 12. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.10376 of 2025 is allowed and Criminal Petition No.10377 of 2025 is dismissed. _______________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.11.2025 VTS