APHC010032622025 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: 49/2025 Between: Jagadeesh @ Balapeddi Jagadeesh and Others ...APELLANT(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Apellant(S): 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Accused Nos.2, 6 and 8 seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.656 of 2024 in Crime No.101 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. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the defacto-complainant along with his villagers are returning to their village after playing volleyball. When they reached Ragigunta village, the villagers were distributing prasadam. They went to collect prasadam and the accused being villagers 2 of Ragigunta wrongfully restrained 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. Thereafter, some of the villagers rescued them from the hands of accused and shifted them to Government Hospital, Srikalahasti. As such defacto-complainant lodged a complaint against the Appellants herein which was registered as a case in Crime No.101 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 and 8, Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State/Respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants/Accused Nos.2, 6 and 8 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 defacto-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 this 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 3 petition before the competent Court. Appellants filed Crl.M.P.No.656 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. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Appellants in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would disclose that, the anticipatory bail application filed before the trial Court has been dismissed vide Order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.656 of 2024, on the ground that there is absolutely no material to say that prima faice such offences are not made out. 7. In Prathviraj Chauhan vs. Union of India1, the Hon’ble Apex 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. Thus, while dealing with the present application for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court cannot use 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 1 2020 (4) SCC 727 4 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, no Court shall entertain the application for anticipatory bail unless, it prima-facie finds that such an offence is not made out. 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 and 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. 9. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:04.02.2025 SCS 5 28 THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.49 of 2025 DATE:04.02.2025 SCS