APHC010431142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI r MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8638 OF 2025 Btetween: 1. P.Inthiyaz, S/o. Dasthagiri, aged 34 years, D.No. 26-1126, Kethireddy Colony, Dharmavaramu Town, Sri Satya Sai District 2. Basha @ Krishnapuram Shaik Baba Fakruddin, S/o. Faiz Ahmmad, aged 20 years, Dharmavaram Town, Sri Satya Sai District. 3. P.Chand Basha, S/o. Mandoji, Aged 35 years, Dharmavaram Town, Sri Satya Sai District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2. The Station House Officer, Dharmavaram I Town P.S., Satya Sai District ...Respondents 3. Vanam Ganganna, S/o. Ganganna, aged about 54 year, R/o. Santhi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Satya Sai District. [Respondent No.3 is impleaded as per the Court Order dated 10.09.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.8638 of 2025.] ...Respondent No.3 Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct enlargement of the petitioners on bail in the 'event of their arrest in Crime No. 138 of 2025, dated 28-06-2025 of Dharmavaram I Town P.S., Sri Satya Sai District. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI KARNAM RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010431142025 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8638/2025 IN THE [3521] r THE Between; DISTRICT KRISHNAPURAMSHAIKBABA FAKRUDDIN, s/a FAIZ dharmavaramtown.sri satya sai 2 BASHA ALIAS AHMMAD, AGED 20 YEARS DISTRICT. MANDOJl, AGED 35 YEARS, S/0.. H CHAND BASHA, - DHARMAVARAMTOWN, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRI 3.P ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 1.THE STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH 2.THE STATION HOUSE OFFIEER, DHARMAVARAM I TOWN RS SATYASAl DISTRICT 3.VANAM GANGANNA, S/0. ^ANGANNA^AGED ABOUT 54 YEAR.^/O SANTHI NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM ^^N^^^YpouRT^ ORDER RESPONDENT NO.3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE C DATED 10.09.2025 IN I.A.N0.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.N0.8638 OF 20 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S); karnam ramesh Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI 2 Dr. YLR, j Crl.P.No.8638of2025 Dated 27.10.2025 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 138 of 2025 of Dharmavaram I Town' Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 109(1), 324(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.06.2025, at about 9:00 P.M., near the exhibition grounds beside the Hindu Burial Ground Dharmavaram Town, the accused Nos.1 to 4, along with others, all residents of Jamia Masjid area, Dharmavaram Town, went to the exhibition behaved in a high-handed manner, and abused the complainant and his family by referring to their caste. Accused Inthiyaz, armed with an iron rod, assaulted the complainant, his wife Yellamma, and their three sons, namely Ramesh, Janardhan, and Bhanu Prakash. 3 Dr. YLR, J Grip.No.8638 of 2025 Doted 27.10.2025 Accused Arifulla further threatened to kill them and assaulted Ramesh with a sharpened iron rod. When Yellamma tried to intervene, she was also assaulted and sustained a bleeding injury on her shoulder. Accused Baba pushed and kicked the complainant’s son and daughter-in-law . The accused persons further threatened to kill the complainant’s family, damaged their exhibition articles, and abused them by touching their caste. Based on the complaint, a case was registered and investigation was taken up. 3. Sri Karanam Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family. The petitioner No.2/accused is at an impressionable age of 20 years. They have got fixed abode and will not flee away from the clutches of law. The complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant is a tutored one and an afterthought. There is a delay of five days in lodging the report, which was not properly explained. Hence, the learned counsel urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public 4. Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant of pre-arrest bail to the Dr. YLR, j CrI.P.N0.8638 of 2025 Dated 27.10.2025 petitioners, submitting that the delay of five days was properly explained by the de-facto complainant in the FIR. Because of the veracity of the threat caused by the petitioners, the de-facto complainant and the other injured persons left the town for some days and later mustered courage to lodge a report with the police. That apart, more than five persons have suffered injuries at the hands of the petitioners and there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners. The wound certificate of c. L.W.7, who is an independent witness is not yet received. The investigation is at a nascent stage and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, submits that the accusation is well founded. The petitioners knew pretty well that the de-facto complainant and other victims belong to Yerukala Community (ST) and the petitioners abused the victims in the name of their caste and also beat them indiscriminately causing injuries to the victims. Therefore, the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would squarely be applicable and urged to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8638 of 2025 Dated 27.10.2025 from the record, no doubt there is a delay of five days in de-facto complainant against the petitioners. In the mentioned in the FIR 7. As seen lodging report by the FIR, the delay of five days was explained. It was complainant, along with other victims, had left the • > fear that the petitioners would again attack them during the matter of Trial. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the that the de-facto village due to night time. Anyhow, the aspect of delay is a other contention of the cannot be appreciated at this juncture. The approached this Court after dismissal of the pre-arrest complaint is a tutored one petitioners have bail petition before the learned Trial Court. Bench of this Court in iVdadata Rajani v. State of 8. A Division Andhra Pradesh', while answering the reference, held that if a prima application for grant of pre-arrest bail is 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Cr.P.C.’) before the High Court only against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of facie case is not made out, an maintainable under Section 1973 (for brevity ‘the provisions of the Atrocities) Act. The investigation L.Ws.1, 3, 4, and 7 suffered injuries, but those are invisible injuries. However, L.W,7 also suffered injuries, and his wound certificate is yet to reveals that L.W.2 suffered simple injuries. 9, CrI.P.Nos 1461 of 2025 & batch vide order dated 19.09,2025 Dr. YLR, j Crl.P.No.8638of2025 Dated 27.10.2025 be received. L.W.7 is an independent witness who does not belong to the ST Community and he supported the version of the de-facto complainant and other witnesses. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioners who had allegedly caused severe injuries to the victims per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Panjab^ and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)^. The learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to grant liberty to the petitioners/Accused to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and move an appropriate application for their release before the Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners/Accused to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate for enlarging them on bail. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by giving due and % 10. , as 11. 12. (1980) 2 see 565 ^(2020) 5 see 1 --■'S 7 Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.N0.8638 of 2025 Dated 27.10.2025 r sufficient opportunity of hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably within two (02) days. SDI- SK.MOHAMMED RAFI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Station House Officer, Dharmavaram I Town P.S. Satya Sai District. 2. One CC to Sri Karnam Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies GPC TAC 1. HIGH COURT DATED: 27/10/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 8638 OF 2025 s( 2 8 OCT 2025 ^ -yiN^urrent Section/^ J DISMISSING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION