APHC010286872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4611/2026 Between: 1. KATTA KISHORE ALIAS PALUKURI VENKATA KISHORE, , S/O RAMANAIAH,AGED 20 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,R/O.D.NO.3/178-1, CHINNA KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE,VONTIMITTA MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT - 516213. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH VONTIMITTA POLICE STATION, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. EERI VENKATESU, , S/O LATE E. SREENIVASULU,AGED 48 YEARS. OCCUPATION AUTO DRIVER,R/O HARIJANAWADA, CHITVEL VILLAGE AND MANDAL,TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 516104. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K PRIDHVI RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. VALLEPU PAVAN KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID 2 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 Petitioner/Accused No.5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.24 of 2026 of Vontimitta Police Station, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act.,’). 2. The prosecution case is that on 18.04.2026 at about 10:00 p.m., near Haritha Hotel, Vontimitta, the accused persons, belonging to upper caste, lured the victim Harshavardhan @ Nani, to the hotel on the pretext of work and thereafter wrongfully confined him near the SC Hostel, tied his eyes, abused him by his caste name, and brutally assaulted him with cricket bats with intent to kill, causing severe bleeding and blunt injuries. The motive was previous enmity and caste hatred arising out of his intervention in a quarrel earlier. The victim was shifted to hospital in grievously injured condition. 3. Sri K.Pridhvi Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire case registered in Cr.No.24/2026 of Vontimitta Police Station is a false and motivated implication arising out of village rivalries and caste polarization, and that no specific overt act has been attributed to the Petitioner, who is a 20‑year‑old student pursuing II Year B.E. in Electronics and Communication 3 Engineering at SIMATS Engineering College, Chennai, with no criminal antecedents and bright academic prospects. It is urged that the Petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence on 18.04.2026, his name has been mechanically included in the FIR without credible evidence, and the medical record itself shows only simple injuries of swelling and tenderness without any fracture or grievous hurt. Learned Counsel would further submit that custodial interrogation is wholly unnecessary, that the Petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, and that his arrest would irreparably prejudice his academic career. It is further submitted that three co‑accused have already been arrested, that the Petitioner is not a flight risk, has no local influence to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, and is prepared to abide by any stringent conditions including reporting to the police station and surrendering his passport. The continuation of threat of arrest amounts to harassment and mental torture, and the invocation of provisions of ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act.,’ against the Petitioner is an over‑implication without proper application of mind. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner and submits that the allegations against the Petitioner are grave, involving a deliberate conspiracy and brutal caste‑based assault wherein the victim, a Scheduled Caste youth, was lured 4 under false pretext, blindfolded, abused with derogatory caste slurs, and mercilessly beaten with cricket bats causing bleeding injuries and swelling over vital parts of the body. The plea of false implication and academic hardship cannot outweigh the seriousness of the offence or dilute the legislative intent of protecting Scheduled Caste victims from targeted atrocities. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Vidadala Rajani v. State of A.P.,1 wherein at paragraph Nos.22 & 23 it is held that while adverting to the authoritative decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India2, Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala3, and Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra4, elucidated that the embargo engrafted under Sections 18 and 18A of ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act.,’ is not absolute but conditional upon the existence of a prima facie case. It was categorically observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when the foundational material does not disclose a prima facie offence under ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act.,’ the constitutional right of an accused to invoke Section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3404 2 (2020) 4 SCC 727 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 4 (2012) 8 SCC 795 5 anticipatory bail remains unimpaired. It has further clarified that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforementioned decisions, had not adjudicated upon the forum for entertaining such applications, but confined itself to the maintainability thereof vis-à-vis the statutory bar. Consequently, the High Court, upon a meticulous examination of the statutory scheme and judicial dicta, concluded that the statutory prohibition under Sections 18 and 18A of ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act.,’ is attracted only when prima facie incriminatory material exists, and conversely, in its absence, the bar stands inoperative, thereby preserving the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a petition under Section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 7. On a careful appraisal of the record, it is found that the allegations against the Petitioner disclose a prima facie case of a deliberate and pre‑planned caste‑based assault. The victim, a Scheduled Caste youth, was lured under false pretext, blindfolded, abused with derogatory caste slurs, and mercilessly beaten with cricket bats, resulting in bleeding injuries and swelling. The nature of the allegations, coupled with the caste-based abuses, clearly attract the provisions of ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act.,’ which impose a statutory bar on the grant of anticipatory bail. The plea of false implication and academic hardship raised by the Petitioner cannot outweigh the seriousness of the offence or dilute the legislative intent behind the special enactment meant to protect Scheduled Caste victims from targeted atrocities. 6 8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment in Vidadala Rajani supra, wherein it was held that the embargo under Sections 18 and 18A of ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act.,’ is not absolute but conditional upon the existence of a prima facie case. However, in the present matter the foundational material clearly discloses a prima facie offence under ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act.,’ as the allegations specifically involve caste‑based abuses and assault. Therefore, the ratio in Vidadala Rajani supra does not assist the Petitioner, and the statutory bar remains operative. 9. It is also pertinent to note that though Accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 have been released on anticipatory bail, the allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.5 are distinct, warranting separate consideration. The Petitioner is alleged to have actively participated in the conspiracy and execution of the assault, and in view of the gravity of the offence, the caste‑based motive, and the statutory embargo, this Court finds that a prima facie case is made out against him. 10. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.5 does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. Furthermore, importantly grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab5 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of 5 (1980) 2 SCC 565 7 Delhi)6. There are no merits in the petition. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:20.07.2026 VTS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 (2020) 5 SCC 1