Dismissed¶38

Gonthena Raj Kumar @ Gonthena Lova Raj Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Apr 2025CRLA/130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused — Accused No.75, Crime No.137/2023, Gannavaram PS (TDP office attack, caste abuse, car burnt; political rivalry) — appeal against rejection order dt.13.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.Nos.124/2025 & Batch (Special Judge SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada) dismissed — plea of alibi not entertainable at anticipatory bail stage — presence vouched by L.Ws.52–55 — allegations prima facie attract offences; investigation at nascent stage — Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, 16.04.2025 (CNR APHC010115342025).

What did the court decide?

The Court endorsed the Assistant Public Prosecutor's submission, holding that the plea of alibi cannot be considered while dealing with/granting an anticipatory bail. ¶37

Gonthena Raj Kumar @ Gonthena Lova Raj Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the Appellant/Accused No.75 in connection with Crime No.137 of 2023 (criminal appeal against rejection of his anticipatory bail application by the Special Judge/III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada). +2 more

¶32

Court's answer

In view of the accusations levelled against the Appellant and the stage of investigation, the contentions raised on his behalf could not be considered at that stage; it was not the stage to decide his culpability.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Court endorsed the Assistant Public Prosecutor's submission, holding that the plea of alibi cannot be considered while dealing with/granting an anticipatory bail.

¶37

Key takeaways

Presence of the Appellant at the relevant time and place stood established through the statements of L.Ws.52 to 55, on which basis his name was added to the crime.ratio¶37
Since the allegations prima facie attracted the alleged offences against the Appellant, the question of granting anticipatory bail to him at that stage did not arise.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa — Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2025 — decided 16.04.2025. The Appellant, arrayed as Accused No.75 in Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Police Station (prosecution case: unlawful assembly armed with sticks, stones, deadly weapons and petrol bottles attacking the Telugu Desam Party office at Gannavaram, abuse of the de facto complainant in the name of his caste, and burning of car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555; political rivalry between the parties noted), sought anticipatory bail. His application had been dismissed by Common Order dated 13.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.Nos.124 of 2025 & Batch of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. HELD: (i) a plea of alibi cannot be considered while granting anticipatory bail; (ii) the Appellant's presence at the relevant time and place was established through the statements of L.Ws.52 to 55, whereby he was added to the crime; (iii) given the accusations against him, the stage of investigation, and allegations prima facie attracting the alleged offences, anticipatory bail could not be granted at that stage, it not being the stage to decide culpability. Criminal Appeal dismissed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010115342025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶6

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 130/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

GONTHENA RAJ KUMAR @ GONTHENA LOVA RAJ KUMAR,, S/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA SWAMY AGE 37 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 6-142/1, DAVAJIGUDEM ALLAPURAM, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶12

...APELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER GANNAVARAM URBAN POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPODENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶16

1.BOBBA HARI PRASAD REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶18

SPL PP FOR CID

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Accused No.75 seeking to set aside the Order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.124 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act -cum-III Additional District and Sessions

¶22

Judge, Vijayawada and to grant anticipatory bail to him.

¶23

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 22.02.2025 at about 5.00

¶24

p.m., while the De facto complainant along with others was at the office, the-

¶25

¶26

then MLS Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan in two black cars came to the Telugu Desam Party office, Gannavaram and threatened that TDP is finished and left that place. Thereafter at about 5.30 p.m., Accused Nos.1 to 44 and 100 others formed into unlawful assembly, armed with sticks, stones, deadly weapons and petrol bottles, attacked the TDP office by raising slogans “ Jai Vallabhaneni Vamsi” . The mob hurled stones on the office, entered into the office room and damaged the furniture. Accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 intimidated and abused the De facto Complainant in the name of his caste. Accused No.44 poured petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it, due to which, the car was entirely burnt. Based on the complaint given by the De facto Complainant, a case in Crime No.137 of 2023 on the file of Gannavaram Police Station, has been initially registered against the ten persons and subsequently, the Appellant herein was arrayed as Accused No.75 in the alleged crime.

¶27

3. Heard Sri Bobba Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.75 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent.

¶28

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.75 would submit that initially the Appellant was not shown as an Accused in the above crime and his name was added subsequently. Learned counsel would further submit that, except the present crime, there are no criminal antecedents against the

¶29

Appellant. Learned counsel would submit that the Appellant is no way

¶30

concerned with the alleged incident. It is submitted that the marriage of the

¶31

¶32

Appellant was performed on 14.02.2023 and that the Appellant left for Delhi on 14.02.2023 and returned to Gannavaram on 23.02.2023. Learned counsel would submit that the Appellant herein is falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations leveled against him are false and baseless. It is submitted that the offence under provisions of SCST (PoA) Act does not attract against the Appellant/Accused No.75. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant.

¶33

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the investigation in the present crime is at the nascent stage. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the plea of alibi cannot be considered at this stage. It is further submitted that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in view of the allegations to attract the offence under SCST (PoA) Act. It is submitted that the statements of L.Ws.52 to 55 would disclose the presence of the Appellant at the relevant time and place. It is submitted that specific allegations are made against the Appellant in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

6. Perusal of the material on record would disclose that, the anticipatory

¶35

bail application filed by the Appellant herein before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada has been dismissed vide Common Order dated 13.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.Nos.124 of 2025 & Batch. A bare perusal of the material on record would disclose that there is political rivalry between the parties. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public

¶36

¶37

Prosecutor, the plea of alibi cannot be considered, while granting an anticipatory bail. Further, since the presence of the Appellant at the relevant time and place was established through the statements of L.Ws.52 to 55, his name was also added in the present crime. In view of the accusations leveled against the Appellant, and the stage of investigation, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant cannot be considered, at this stage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that, though it is not the stage to decide the culpability of the Appellant, in view of the allegations to prima facie attract the alleged offences against the Appellant, the question of granting anticipatory bail to him, at this stage, does not arise. The appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

7. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶39

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶41

Date:16.04.2025 Dinesh

¶42

¶43

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶44