Dismissed¶35

A Bhanuprakash v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Apr 2025CRLA/199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused; SC/ST (PoA) Act bar on anticipatory bail; Crime No.25 of 2025, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati; BNS Sections 118(1), 49, 351(3), 3(5) and 109(1); SCs & STs (PoA) Act Section 3(2)(va); Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2025, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati; Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2025; Appellant A Bhanuprakash (Accused No.11); Respondent State of Andhra Pradesh; four other crimes pending against Appellant; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Stating the settled law that where the offence registered against the accused is under the provisions of the SCST (PoA) Act, no Court shall entertain the application for anticipatory bail unless it finds that no prima facie case is made out for such an offence. ¶31

A Bhanuprakash Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the Appellant/Accused No.11 in Crime No.25 of 2025 registered at Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

In view of the allegations levelled against the Appellant (including that he attacked the injured Babu knowing fully well that he belongs to Scheduled Caste), the pendency of other crimes against him and the gravity of the alleged offences, and while noting that it was not the stage to decide the culpability of the Appellant, the Court held that the question of granting anticipatory bail to him at this stage does not arise.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal dismissed — anticipatory bail refused. The Appellant/Accused No.11 sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.25 of 2025 (Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati), initially registered under Sections 118(1), 49 and 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS over an attack on the de facto complainant's husband; during investigation, after the statements of L.Ws.10 to 14, he was arraigned and Section 109(1) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act were added, the allegation being that he attacked the injured Babu knowing fully well that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. His anticipatory bail application had been dismissed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati vide Orders dated 24.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2025. The High Court (Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa) reiterated that where the offence is under the SCST (PoA) Act, no Court shall entertain an anticipatory bail application unless it finds no prima facie case is made out; considering the allegations, the pendency of four other crimes against the Appellant and the gravity of the offences, and without deciding culpability at this stage, the Court held anticipatory bail does not arise. Appeal dismissed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶1

APHC010168912025

¶2

[3396]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 199/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

A BHANUPRAKASH, S/O A. MUNIKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YRS, R/O D.NO. 2-216, SN PURAM, RAJIV NAGAR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRIC

¶11

...APELLANT

¶12

AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

¶13

...RESPODENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶15

1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT:

¶19

The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Accused No.11 seeking to set aside the Order dated 24.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.49 of 2025 in Crime No.25 of 2025 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati and to grant anticipatory bail to him.

¶20

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, one Satyanarayana had given an amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs to Accused Nos.1 and 2 for which, the husband of de facto complainant stood as a mediator. As Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not

¶21

¶22

repay the said amount, the husband of the de facto complainant used to demand them to repay the same. In that view, on 13.12.2024 both Accused came to the house of the de facto complainant , warned her husband and subsequently on 24.01.2025 at 10.00 p.m., three unknown persons, who were sent by Accused Nos.1 and 2 beat her husband with an iron rod on his head, caused bleeding injuries and fled away. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.25 of 2025 on the file of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati has been registered for the offences under Sections118(1), 49 and 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS.

¶23

3. Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.11 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.11 would submit that the Appellant is no way concerned with the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the Appellant was not present at the relevant place at the relevant time. Learned counsel would further submit that even omnibus allegations are not there against the Appellant to connect him with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the offence under provisions of SCST (PoA) Act does not attract against the Appellant/Accused No.11. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant.

¶25

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition

¶26

and would submit that as there are specific allegations against the Appellant, along with the other Accused, his name was added in the present

¶27

¶28

crime and Sections of Law were also altered. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that there are four other crimes registered against the Appellant. It is submitted that the statements of L.Ws.10 to 14 would reveal the involvement of the Appellant in the commission of the alleged offences, as such, there is every possibility of escaping from the bail and influencing the independent witness, if the Appellant is granted anticipatory bail. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

6. Perusal of the material on record would disclose that, the anticipatory bail application filed by the Appellant herein before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati has been dismissed vide Orders dated 24.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2025. As seen from the material on record, initially the case was registered against Accused Nos.1 and 2 and three others for the offences under Sections 118(1), 49 and 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, having recording the statements of the independent witnesses i.e., L.Ws.10 to 14 and having found specific allegations against the Appellant/Accused No.11, his name was also added in the present crime and the Section of Law was also altered by adding Section 109(1) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. The material would further show that there are allegations against the Appellant that he had attacked the injured Babu knowing fully well that he belongs to Scheduled Caste.

¶30

7. The law is well settled that, when the offence registered against the

¶31

Accused is under the provisions of SCST(PoA) Act, no Court shall entertain

¶32

¶33

the application for anticipatory bail unless, it finds that no prima – facie case is made out for such an offence. In view of the allegations leveled against the Appellant and pendency of other crimes against him, as submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the gravity of the alleged offences, this Court is of the view that, though it is not the stage to decide the culpability of the Appellant in the commission of the alleged offences, the question of granting anticipatory bail to him, at this stage, does not arise.

¶34

The appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

8. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:25.04.2025 Dinesh

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶40