lN THE HIGH COURT OF,ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl .¥7i FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Mos.3589, 3590 & 3794 OF 2025 CRIMl ON NO: 3589 OF 2025 Between : Kaila Adhi Lakshmi, W/o. Ka'lla SivaKumar, Aged 47 years, R/o.D.No.2-120, vedurupavuluru, GannaVaram, Krishna D'lstrict A2 ...petitioner/Accused No.28 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Through the SHO Gannavaram Police Station Krishna District, 2. Mudunuri Satyavardhan, S/o. Mudunuri Prasad, Aged 30 years, R/o. GannaVaram Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District. (Respondent No.2 is imp[eaded aS Per the Court order dated 17.04.2025 -[n Cr[.P.No.3589 of 2025.) . . . Defacto ComplainantIVictim pet'[tion under section 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of cr.p.c), pray[lng that in the circumstances stated [[n the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petit'loner/ Accused No. 28 .on BaH in Connection With F.I,R.No.137 of 2023 cr-lme No.137 of 2023 of Gannavarm Police Station, Krishna district for OffenCeS Under Sections 143,147,148, 435, 506 r/w 149 lpc and sections 3 (1) ( r) (S ) OfSc& ST ( POA)Act ,1989the intereStSOf Justice. counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. V.Devi Satya Sri counsel for the Respondent No.1 -. Public Prosecutor. - CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3590 OF 2025 Between: 1. Kaila Sivakumar, S/o. Nathaneyulu, Aged 47 years, R/o.D.No.2-120, .Vedurupavuluru, Gannavaram, Krishna District. _.A:Ij. 2. Neelam Praveen Kumar, S/o. Raghavulu, Aged 46 years, R/o. D.No.4= 61, Gowdapeta, Gannavaram, Krishna District. ...A54 3. Racheti Ruthumma, W/o. Ravi kumar. Aged 52 years, R/o.D.No.15-33, Harijanawada, Gannavaram, Krishna District. ...A68 ...Petitioner/Accused No.27, 54, 68 AND 1. The State of Andhra-Pradesh, Rep by its Public prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Through the SHO Gannavaram Police Statiori Krishna District 2. Mudunuri Satyavardhan, S/o. Mudunuri' Prasad, Aged 30 years,. R/o. Gannavaram Village, Gannavaram MandaI, Krishna District. (Responclent No.2 is impleaded as per the court order dated 17|04|2025 in CrI.PINo|3590 of 2025) Respondent/ComplainantIVictini Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds fI'Ied in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.s.27,54,68 on Bail, ih Connection with F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 crime No.137 of 2023 of , Gannavarm Police Station, Krishna district for offences under sections 143,147, 148, 435, 506r/w149 IPCandSections3 (1) (r)(s)ofSc&ST(POA)Act,1989the interests of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. V,Devi Satya Sri counsel for the Respo-ngent No.1 : Public Prosecutor. | CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 37g4Q|2g2± Between : 1-SK. Mohammad Moulana AbuI Kalam, S/o. Turab AIi, Aged about 63 years, R/o. D.No. 6_19/1, GannaVaram, Krishna District. 2. Shaik Sardar Johny, S/o.Bajani, Aged about 62 years, R/o.H.No.ll- 119, lslampeta, Gannavaram, Krishna District. ...petitioner/Accused Nos.47 & 55 AND. The State of Andhra-Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, p.s.Gannavaram UPS, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS (old Sections 437 & 439 of cr.p.c), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioners/Accused No. 47 & 55 on bail in connection with crime:No.137 of 2023 on the file Of gannaVaram Other UPS Krishna District. counsel for the petitioners : sri Jangam Venkata Siva Sai Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: ..i.¥i=` \_-_--is`.=r| I-_-- Between.I sk Mohammad Moulana Abul Kalam and others ...pETITfONER/A.47 & A.55 AND Tchoeu::aet\ef:rf tAhned:reat\=\=ndeer;ahccused{s)= \-RESPONDENTICOMPLAI NANT 1. JANGAM VENKATA SIVA SAI counsel for tJle Respondent/complaf-Pant.- 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The court made the followI-ng 1. slnCe these crlmlnal petJtJOns are flled, 480 and 483 of Bharatlya Nagarlk Suraksha sanhlta, 2023 (for short, {{BNSSJ), seeklng regular ba" by dl'fferent accused I e , Crl.p.No.3589 of 2025 (flled by A 28), crl.p.No.359O of 2025 (flled by A 27, A 54 & A 68) and crllP.No.3794 of 2025 (flled by A 47 & A.55) In same crlme VIZ , Cr No 137 of 2023 of Gannavaram pollce statlon, they are beJng taken up together for dISPOSa' by way of thls common order 2. The above crlme was reglstered agaJnSt the petftIOners and others for the offence punIShable under sectIOns 143, 147, 148, 435J 506 I/w 149 of the lndlan Penal code, 1860 (referred to as the 'IIPIC I) and sectIOn 3(1)(r), 3% of scheduled castes and scheduled Trlbes (POA) Act, 1989 (referred to as cthe ActJ). 3. The prosecutlon's case, as out'lned ,n the report dated 22 022023, JS as follows.I (I') One Mudunuri satya vardhanJ the de faCtO COmplajnant, works as a computer operator ln the Gannavaram Telugu Desam party offJCe and belongs to the sc MadI'ga commumty. on 20.02.2023 I-n the evenlng, pltta Mahesh, drIVer of Ka'yanI, Was lan the office at about 4- 5.00 P.M. The local MLA= vallabhaneni VamsI- Mohan came in two black Scorpio cars (AP 39 LR 0333, AP 39 LB 0333) and stopped in the. front of party office and threatened that today I'tSelf the Telugu Desam party is over and went away by observing the surroundings. (ill)At about 5.30 P.M., the followers of the YCP party belonging to Gannavaram constituency, including the petitioners herein and other accused, attacked altogether and entered the office and shouted lljai Vallabhaneni vamsi" and throw stones and illegally entered the party offI'Ce With deadly weapons and tryI'ng tO break the furniture, two computers and two televisions and then one Volupallj Mohan Ranga Rao, Yatendra Ramakrishna, Gondi Paramdamaiah, Mulupuri Prabhukanth and pothumarthi Hemanth of YCP party said to him and Mahesh with touching the caste of the defacto complal'nant and told that all the furniture in the party office was smashed with stl'cks, cricket wickets and stones and other are damaged the three cars which are parking in the compound. Rabbani poured petrol on a car bearing No. AP 16 DA 5555 and the said car was burnt, and the entire episode took place before the Police. AIl the YCP rowdy leaders illegally formed a group,- they attacked their Telugu Desam Party office, destroyed the furniture and set cars on fire, threatening to kill all the people, saying that they WOuld kI'll anyone who came across their vamsI'. The accused attacked their Telugu Desam Party office with the instigatI'On Of the local Legislator vallabhaneni vamsi as an illegal group. They insulted the defacto complainant in the name of his caste. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that: (i) The petI-tiOnerS have been falsely implicated in this case, despite no mention I'n the defacto complainant's report, and the case is driven by politI-Gal rivalries and caste tensions I'n Gannavaram. It is further asserted that the alleged incident occurred at 5.'30 P.M. The -_- Eii= _ _'__ '_-_____> =_5 '__-- complaint was filed _at 9:45 P.M., delaying nearly four hours. Following a change in -Government, the applicable legal provisions were amended, and Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code was invoked after a lapse of approximately 18 months from the date of the alleged offence. This amendment appears to have been made with a mala fide intention to harass individuals perceived to be poljtica[ly opposed to the current regime, particularly given that the punishment under the revised section exceeds seven years. The prosecution's attempt to add SC/ST provisions was rejected by the Special Court Judge, and the case was transferred to the Ill ACM Court. (ii) cr.No.136/2023 stands fully investigated with a charge sheet filed; the present Cr.No.137/2023 is merely supplementary. No custodial interrogation is required. Over 50 accused, including the main accused, were arrested without police custody. Technical evidence, including CDRs and CCT\/ footage, has already. been presented in the court. The petitioners were arrested on 17.02.2025 (A.47, A.55 & A.68), 24.02.2025 (A.27, A.28 & A.54) and have remained in judicial custody since that date. The petitioners (A.28, A.47, A.55 and A.68) were suffering with several ailments and they need continuous medical treatment for their respective health issues. [t is further submitted that the investigation has been fully concluded. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor filed a counter, contending that the present bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable, as provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, remain applicable in Crime No.137/2023. Despite adverse observations by the Special Court on 13.02.2025 and 17.02.2025, no alteration memo has been filed to delete the SC/ST charges. .Thus, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act. ©h `` t\`| (ii) The State has fI'Ied CrI.P.No.3682/2025 under Section 528 BNSS r/ seeking expungement of the 13.02.2025 order, scheduled for hearing on 16,04.2025. It also contests the special Court's 17.02.2025 order refusing to hear the remand application; the petitI'OnerS' involvement based on call records, witness statements, and CCTV footage, showI'ng their actl-ve Participation in the crime, orchestrated by A.71, a political figure. (iii) The I-nVeStl'gatiOn Was Stagnant from Feb-July 2023. Approval for deletion of SC/ST provisions was obtained on o4.07.2023, but no alteration memo was filed before the court. A new I.O. resumed the probe I'n July 2024. out of 93 accused, 34 remain absconding. petI-tiOnerS Were also absconding, and arrested only on 17.02.2025 (A.47, A.55 & A.68), 24.02.2025 (A.27, A.28 & A.54). (iv) Given the gravity of the offences, ongoing investigation, and risk of tampering or aiding the abscondi.ng accused, it is requested to dismiss the Present CrI-minal petition. 6. I have heard Ms. V. Devi Satya Sri and Sri Jangam Venkata Siva SaI', learned counsel for the petI'tiOnerS, Sri P. Venugopala Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of srj v. venkata subbaiah, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent / defacto complainant and sri sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel representing the Respondent-State. Both sides reiterated theI-r submissions on par with the contentions presented I'n the Petition and counter. 7- In Masroor V. Sfafe ofU,P.7, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows.I 13. ... Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evid.en.:e a_nd detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may Prejudice the accused, Should be avoided, there iS a need tO indicate in Su;h ord?: tea.sons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted Particularly Where the accused is `charged with having committed a -serious offence. 1 (2009) 14 SCC 286 i_-_-I T* '~_- - 8I The learned counsel for the'petI'tiOners contends that petl'tjoners are S falsely implicated I-n the case,- no specific overt acts are attrI-buted agaI-nSt the petitioners I-n the report lodged by the defacto complal-nant, and theI'r names are also not referred {o in the report. 9. The petl'tl-oners have raised contentions asserfjng that sections 436 and 450 of the IPC do not apply to the facts of the present case. AdditI'Onally, l|t has been noted that the prosecution I-nCluded provisI-OnS under the SC/ST (scheduled castes and scheduled Trl-bes) Act by filing a memo, which the learned special Court subsequently deleted. FoIIowI-ng the deletion, the case was transferred to the Ill AddI'tl'OnaI ChI|ef Metropolitan Magistrate court for further proceedings. 10. Upon examination of the ava"able records, it is premature to conclude, at thI-S juncture, that the offences alleged against the petitioners are wholly inapplicable. should the petitioners wish to challenge the I-nclusI|On Of the provI'SiOnS aS mentioned above, it is open for them to present detaI-led arguments in support of their stand at the appropriate stage of the Proceedings before the special court. ll. In such an event, the sessl'ons Judge shall provide both parties with a fa,'r opportunllty tO Present their arguments regarding the applicabilI-ty Of the relevant provisions at the approprI-ate stage of the proceedI-ngS. This court clarifies that the observations made by the learned sessI'OnS Judge, particularly those regardI-ng the potentI-al deletion or non-applicabiljty of provI-SiOnS under the Scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes (preventl'on of Atrocl'tl'es) Act (SC/ST Act), should not be considered definjtjve or conclusive. Ba" proceedings, whI'Ch Primarily focus on whether the accused should be granted temporary release pendJ-ng trial, do not typI-Cally involve a comprehensive review of the case merits or a detailed examl-nation of statutory provisions, consjderjng a" relevant legal prl|ncjples, precedents, and facts, a thorough revl'ew should be deferred {o a later stage Ion the J'udjCiaI pr,ocess, allowing both parties' to advance their cases fully. Therefore, while r/ the observations made during the bail hearI'ng are essential Within that specific context, they should not be considered final or binding. The Sessions Judge must ensure that both parties have the opportunity to fully argue their stand on the applicability of the offences alleged. However, at this stage, this court is not inclined to make any definitive findings concerning the Sessions JudgeJs observations regarding the non-application of the SC/ST Act provisions. 12. Therefore, it is needless to mention that it 'lS open tO both Parties tO submit their respective contentions at the appropriat,e stage of the proceedings, and the sessions Judge shall duly consider these submissions. 13. The record shows that call data records and Other technical evidence related to the petitioners have already been collected. Statements from witnesses (LWs 1 to 55) have been recorded, and some Statements have been made under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners were arrested on 17.02.2025 (A.47, A.55 & A.68) and 24.02.2025 (A.27, A.28 & A.54) and have been in judicial custody since. The record indicates that this COurt granted bail to A.5 in CrI.P.No.5202 of 2024 (dated 23.08.2024) and to 14 other accused in crl.p.No.5375 of 2024 (dated 23.08.2024). Furthermore, the Special Court granted bail to 30 other accused in this Case. The prosecution has not provided sufficient reasons why the petitionersJ further detention is necessary for further investigation. The petitioners, A.28 and A.68 (women), A.47 (63 years) and A.55 (around 62 years) assert they Suffer from Severe health problems and have permanent residence, posing no flight risk. 14. Considering that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for a significant period and that the investigation is nearly complete as it pertains to them, considering the nature of the allegations and the length of the detention, there seems to be no further justification for continued detention to facilitate the investigation. The prosecution has not Claimed that the Petitioners have ;Jrf.,,i 8 interfered with the l'nvestl'gatjon or threatened wl-tnesses. Furthermore, the delay l|n the,-r arrest cannot be construed as an attempt to evade arrest. ~I- 15. The two paramount consl-derations, namely, the lI'kelI-hood of the accused fleeing from justI|Ce and theI'r tamperllng with prosecution evI-dence, relate to ensuring a faI-r Case trial I-n the course of justice. Due and proper weI|ght should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. 16. ln sam/-ay ona»dra v. cB/2, the HonJble Supreme court held that.I ?:;:ns tbha:: :hpepI:ch:::fn:; ::.:=:alI!y,_ :i has .been laid down from the earliest i:: eh;stht:ta lthbev oabj :ec: QO! ni.a:I, :i -_to: I_s ±'l;:e-. twfice::c:a:as eado£sT:On:s tahpep eeaarr: :cs: aotu : : :vteri a: obry nan::aans+: :`:^b I e ha_i ;;;: 'if L:a;iI: uT-hues eoabJPeecrtsoo: I sb a: i %se anreai#hceer ppuun:::vhem::tr I:nr:R:QeQnti:tiiV.e :^ P.=p_ri_i-;,;i;; w;II -I i;::y u#uesCt[ ObTe Dca:nlsSidneer:t:ela ps:an:sdh %senttria: n#hsQ:n i:::arde?,u_i!r=d jf; -:nVs;r:i; :yt ::u Sa[ccDueseCdOnpS::seor:dw:I st:a :hue h::i ntr:iaDIl ew£heant cn:Ill:Qdh !PaOn;+:T!;~:.::*sc :'#el : no rea Ct:uaSnevae rPbearlSrOens pWei:It i:s tdheee%iendc 'ltp:ebteh iantnpnurn:nsth jn;;: i:i.ii::_:#eor:cv:epvrir::iroen I: nadn tvheartb :I:e; pme:1n is^_dee_med to be innocent un;iI -d~ui;;;;:;IaL:: Udu:IlyVIfC:IuOnndagnuailtt;. 2p2:nFd::gm ctoh:D;eatril:enStoft'I%heps;r.:taIW^a^: , ,:PLP:e:i ated th at_ ;ete;i-ion -In Custody pt:mned i fog ticmo: p:eat:oe: Q:i:, tHhaemtr: : lad ^C-O.-Lu I_ilr:i-; I ucta5uus: I :; gu ::eatn I:Oanrdlsnh iCp: S:Orod% time:d i:a i icmues'fonde\:ensos:t% nd~e Tr:a^: d| i -i_; it :;rfe uuanucsoen voiTctgerde apte :saornass n: hp6 uFIrdO £e hse:dc;I nc aCsueS:O?,yn QPrean.d!I.,:l:, i:r:a! :i_i `S;rv: I ;; e;; I ua;t':nI :[aenaceP earls:hn: :r:aolu:du tb :n squucife cacsoen;;a':nlecfehss:thy! is^ _i_h_e_ oi;r-it;v: I ;:st; LLICn"tub;:uceoua:t[; i[trI:Iobu:dt :ne qcu:i:st::i::rna%h a:o£ nt\jen A :^o^n_ce_i_{ -i.--.-is;suoo;a; " lit::;yCOuenn[sryh'r.I:e%O::a :hoe PJOpnoSntit:t# :cnh thh =t haanQy nPnefrShO^n^ n;;;o~ujj. _b;; lfr 'i :; eI: ;nIT%esepneSc: r:nfeadn yl nm atthteer usphoonu I:h:CehdheeDr:VaQSri nn:i h:.e=,nh ^cul: :y:I;i_i; -;;.I;;a-tu i ; I ;nC;Pc:::uu:satnaync:sa,ttehle s::huldthbee %tpnr:vsesdesofifhi:a#beajy n-u;;A-oily; ;;I;"tat?";e;ir:yf tC:raCtuhmeSt%lc:as;hpeer ::i,h.u:setanw:tens:sses if left at I li;:;;, v::v: 'FnuF:eel [%a.[stneex::I:.i:d:npae: circumstances. 17[ The record I'ndiCates that the remaI-nlng aspects of the jnvestigatl|on Involve the arrest of other absconding accused and the examination of some more wl'tnesses. The petl'tI'Oners were arrested nearly 23 months after the I-ncI|dent The petltI'Oners are the permanent resI'dents of Krlshna District, ` making I-I highly l'mprobable that they would abscond jf granted baI'l. They are wI'lljng to provide suretl-es before the I'nVeStI-gating agency and the court. Therefore, there is no reason to bell-eve that the petjtjoners may flee from the ;I |~'._JJ:_J':-._ _J J| jurl'sdjctjon of the investigat!'on 2 (2012)1 SCC40. officer or evade the court proceedings. ii=iii= 18. The trI-al'S commencement is uncertain as the investigation is ~J incomplete. AI this stage, the allegations against the petitioners are subject to the triaI's outcome, and there is ho material that grantI'ng bail 'would hinder justice. Therefore, this court finds no risk of the petitionersJ tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation. 19. No prima facie material on'record to suggest that, if the benefit ofbail is extended to the petitioners, they are likely to misuse their liberty or create circumstances detrimental to a fair investigation or trial. In the absence of specifl'c overt acts attributed to the petitioners and the period of detention, this court views that it is just and reasonable to release the petitioners on bail by imposing certain conditions. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until their guilt or innocence is determined. 20. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors Peculiar tO this Case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. However, in light of the nature of the allegations, this court will impose stringent conditI'OnS tO ensure the PetitiOnerS' attendance during the investjgatjon and {rI|a]. 21. For the reasons stated above, this court views that bail can be granted to the petitioners with the following conditions.- (i) The petl'tioners/A.27, A.28, A.47, A.54, A.55 and A.68 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Speci.aI Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-Gum-Ill Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. (ii) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acqual-nted wI-th 10 tshuechfaf:tc=ts:fn :hh= :^==vie _t:_ di:=uade himlher from disclosing such facts to the court or any lnvestjgatl'ng or poll'ce offI'Cer. I+ (ill)The petlltjoners sha" cooperate wl'th the investjgatjon agency. ::eaynHS:A::I^anp+plc_=_r _bet?.re the CO ncerned i-;:i:gt==;:gQgoe£ceye: as and when they are dl'rected. (jv)The petitI|Oners sha" scrupulously comply with the above conditllOnS, and breach of any of them w" be vI-eWed seriously. The prosecution I'S at liberty to move an applicatI-On for cancellation of the baI'l. 22. It I-s expII-Cl-fly clarifI'ed that the observatI'OnS made I-n thl-s order are prelI'mjnary and pertain solely to the decl|sjon on the present appll|catl'on wl-thout I'ndI-Cating a stance on the case's merits. The lnvestI|gatl'ng Agency I-s free to l'nvestI'gate wl-thout being influenced by the observatI'OnS In this order. 23. Accordingly, the crimI-Hal PetI-tjOnS are a//owed. To, EEi 9'I..UPI AsslsTii3'FR SEcTloN 1. The special Judge for Trial of cases under sos & sTs (POA) Act-Gum- Ill Additional DI'StrI-Ct Judge, vljayawada. 2. The x" AddI'tI-Onal Dl'strIIct & sessions Judge, vI'j|ayawada. 3. The III Addl-tjonaI Chief Judl-cI-aI Magl-strafe court at vljayawada. 4. The s.H.O, Gannavaram u.poII|Ce Stall-on, KrI'Shna DI'Strl'ct. 5, The superintendent, central Prison, Nellore. 6' ==:un=vu:ir==yv::aa:daha.::_s_l=-Mu=:I;r:'l::aG:ad, Aged 30 years, RID, Gannavaram vlllage, Gannavaram Manda', Krlshna DIStrlct (by RPAD) 7B: Oo:ee r=rc+t^o o:sl-_:' Devi_ satya sr-I Ai-;:::tu: 'F:=::`] 8, one cc to sri Jangam venkata sI-Va Sal', Advocate [opuc] 9. Two cos to public prosecutor (AP) HJgh Court ofAndhra pradesh [OUTJ 10. onesparecopy Cuss `. -_-+ i .\`=`-`~-`=h`.i.`-fa..---.Jife.i.._ -.Li3ri*-. ,-- `-` `- .`ri--L.----s.-.__.`.~` -a---.,+ `, E 't/ ~® a I:-#'-I` ts-? S _¢£ - +`:'-;.`fty&:.... :i-: -,I HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED:02/05/2025 BAIL ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION Mos.3589, 3590 & 3794 OF 2025 ALLOWED