APHC010592562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11488/2025 Between: 1.ADDALA DORABABU, S/O. VENKATESWAR RAO,AGE 36 YEARS, OCCU AGRICULTURE,R/O. 4-31, PATHRU ROAD, GADALA, KORUKONDA,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2.TORAM SURESH KUMAR, , S/O. SURYANARAYANAAGE 43 YEARS, OCCU PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O. GADALA VILLAGE, KORUKONDA,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.MADARAPU SRINIVAS, , S/O. SURYA RAO,AGE 46 YEARS, OCCU AGRICULTURE COOLIER/O. GADALA VILLAGE, KORUKONDA,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4.GANGISETTI SRI MANIKANTA, , S/O. GAVVARAJUAGE 37 YEARS, OCCU PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O. 1-61, MAIN ROAD, GADALA VILLAGE,KORUKONDA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATIFOR P.S. KORUKONDA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2.PAMULA SRINU, S/O.BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC.DRIVER, SC PETA VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 2 1.BASIREDDY GARI SOMANATHESWARA REDDY 2.BASIREDDYGARI SOMANATHESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.G SIMHADRI The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Cr.No.206 of 2025 of Korukonda Police Station, East Godavari Division, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 324(2), 308(4), 115(2), 109(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SCs & STs (PoA) Act’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner No.1 was arrested. Therefore, the Petition against Petitioner No.1 is dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that Accused Nos.1 to 4 were already enlarged on regular bail by the learned Trial Court. The complaint of the de-facto complainant doesn’t say about the motive of the alleged offence. The Petitioners and de-facto complainant are not belonging to the same village. The Petitioners do not know the caste and other particulars 3 of the de-facto complainant. The case was foisted against the Petitioners at the instance of local MLC. As the major investigation is completed, there is no question of Petitioners threatening the witnesses or interfering in the investigation process. Petitioners are innocent, they were falsely implicated in this case. Petitioners have got fixed abode, and they would abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court if they are enlarged on bail and it is urged to allow the criminal petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the de-facto complainant was beaten by the Petitioners and other Accused and he was dragged to a current pole and was tied to the current pole, he was humiliated in the name of his caste by the Petitioners. Grant of pre-arrest bail is not maintainable when there are specific overt acts against the Petitioners as per Section 18(a)(2) of ‘the SCs & STs (PoA) Act’ and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while reiterating the arguments of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 further highlighted the statement of L.W.1 recorded by the investigating officer. There are specific overt acts attributed against petitioners. Barbaric activities have been carried out by the Petitioners. Hence, the Petition may be dismissed. 7. Section 18(a)(2) of ‘the SCs & STs (PoA) Act’ mandates that provisions of Section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/482 of ‘the BNSS’ shall not be applicable in a case under the provisions of ‘the SCs & STs (PoA) Act’. A Division Bench of 4 this Court in Vidadala Rajani v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 while answering the reference observed that when there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners touching the provisions of ‘the SCs & STs (PoA) Act’ anticipatory bail is not maintainable before the learned Special Court. 8. In the statement of the L.W.1 there is a clear reference about the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Merits or demerits of the case cannot be gone into at this juncture. There is an allegation that all the Petitioners, more than five are formed into an unlawful assembly and allegedly committed the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 126(2), 127(2), 324(2), 308(4), 115(2), 109(1) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’ and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of ‘the SCs & STs (PoA) Act’. 9. There are no merits in this case. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:19.11.2025 VTS 1 Crl.P.Nos.1461 of 2025 & batch vide order dated 19.09.2025