IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY U^i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o o -o rUf \CS>. y PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 47 OF 2025 Between: 1. Jagadeesh @ Balapeddi Jagadeesh, S/o. Balapeddi Sekhar, aged about 26 years, R/o. Ragigunta Village and Post, K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District. 2. Kalyan @ Bugga Kalyan Munikalyan, S/o. Balaji, aged about 25 years, R/o. Ragigunta Village and Post, K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District. 3. Suresh @ P.Suresh Kumar, S/o. P.Ramachandraiah, aged about 41 years, R/o. Ragigunta Village and Post, K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati V District. 4. Chandra @ Bugga Uma Chandrasekhar, S/o. Late Ramamurthy, aged about 44 years, R/o. Ragigunta Village and Post, K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District. ...APELLANT(S) AND 1. The State, Represented by Station House Officer, K.V.B. Puram Police Station, Tirupati District 2. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati ...RESPODENTS Appeal under Section 14a (ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 praying that the High Court may be pleased to to allow the appeal by setting aside the ^ order dated 30.12.2024 in CRL.MP.657 of 2024 in (Crime No. 104 of 2024 of K.V.B Puram Police Station, Tirupati District) on the file of court of the Special Judge for Trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 - Cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati District and consequently direct the 1 Respondent to release the Petitioners/Appellants on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 104 of 2024 of K.V.B Puram Police Station, Tirupati District. St lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC 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 direct the 1 the Petitioners / Appellants in connection with Crime No. 104 of 2024 of 1 Respondent Police Station, i.e., K.V.B Puram, Tirupati District, pending hearing in the Criminal Appeal St Respondent Police not to arrest St Counsel for the Appellants : SRI. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR N The Court made the following ORDER : .■*V iSPHCOI 0032612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 47/2025 Between; Jagadeesh @ Balapeddi Jagadeesh, and Others AND ...APELLANT(S) ...RESPODENT(S) The State and Others Counsel for the Apel!ant(S): 1.M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following; JUDGMENT:- The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Accused Nos.2, 6, 8 and 13 seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Cri.M.P.No.657 oF2024 in Crime No.104 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, Tirupati and to grant anticipatory bail to them. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, when the de facto- 2. complainant along with his villagers were going to Srikalahasthi to console 2 the injured persons who were undergoing treatment at Area Hospital, Srikalahasthi, the accused being villagers of Ragigunta conjointly formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and hacked them with deadly weapons with intent to kill them and abused them by touching their caste name and threatened with dire consequences by attacking them with sticks and stones with an intention to kill them. Then the de facto complainant escaped from the clutches of the accused and informed the same to his village elders. As such de facto-complainant lodged a complaint against the Appellants herein which was registered as a case in Crime No.104 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 351(2), 109 read with 190 BNS and 3(1 )(r), 3(1 )(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. 3. Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the Appellants/ Accused Nos.2, 6, 8 and 13, Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State/Respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants/Accused Nos.2, 6, 8 and 13 would submit that the allegations levelled against the Appellants are false and frivolous. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no element of truth in any of the allegations levelled against the accused and all the allegations were invented with a view to implicate them in a false case in order to bring them to the illegal terms of the de facto-complainant by putting pressure on them. It is submitted that in view of some political issues between the parties, the said case is registered against them. No prima facie case is made out against the Appellants. The appellants approached 3 / tT^is Court vide Crl.P.No.7471 of 2024 for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was disposed of with a liberty to the appellants to file an appropriate petition before the competent Court. Appellants filed Crl.M.P.No.657 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, Tirupati and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellants. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are 5. specific allegations against the Appellants in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Perusal of the material on record would disclose that, the 6. anticipatory bail application filed before the trial Court has been dismissed vide Order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.657 of 2024, on the ground that there is absolutely no material to say that prima facie such offences are not made out. In Prathviraj Chauhan vs. Union of lndia\ the Hon’ble Apex 7. Court held that Section 18-A of the Act was inserted by way of amendment and it was clarified that Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure provision shall not applied to the cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act. However, if the complainant does not make out the prima-facie case for applicability of the provisions under SC/ST (PoA) Act, then it can be. Thus, while dealing with the present application for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court cannot use 1 2020 (4) see 727 4 V the power to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure and such order can be made in very exceptional cases, where no prima-facie offence is made out as shown in the F.I.R., and further also if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. Thus, a liberal use of power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of the Parliament in making necessary amendment. When the offence is registered against the accused under the provision of SC/ST (PoA) Act Court shall entertain the application for anticipatory bail unless, it prima-facie finds that such an offence is not made out. \ , no 8. As rightly opined by the learned trial Judge, there are prima facie allegations against the Appellants for the commission of the alleged offences and when a prima facie case is there for the offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act, there is no question of any anticipatory bail. In view of the facts arit^ circumstances of the present case and in view of the above referred (supra) and the nature of the offences alleged against the Appellants, this Court is of the view that, it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellants, at this stage. The appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 5 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand V closed. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO I REGISTER JOINT //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 - Cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati District 2. The Station House Officer, K.V.B. Puram Police Station, Tirupati District 3. One CC to Sri M Pitchaiah Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi |OUf} 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 6. THREE CD COPIES psr TAC N ■“A HIGH COURT / DATED:04/02/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.47 of 2025 a 2 ' JUL 2025 ★ ■ V DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL .•o