Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Ganta Guravaiah Alias Guravaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 August, 2025
APHC010393882025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 551/2025
Between:
1. SRI GANTA GURAVAIAH ALIAS GURAVAIAH, S/O.
GANTA POLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O.
EMPEDU H/WADA, EMPEDU VILLAGE AND POST,
SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, SRIKALAHASTHI RURAL
PS TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
2. VICTIM, A
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. VENKAT RAO RAVULAPALLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 551 of 2025
J U D G M E N T:
Heard Smt.K.Pallavi, learned counsel representing
Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel for the appellant/A5
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
2. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant/A5 under
Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated
01.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2025 on the file of the Special
Judge for Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act at Chittoor.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/A5 would submit that
police registered F.I.R. on 19.04.2025 vide F.I.R.No.75 of 2025 of
Srikalahasti Police Station for the offence under Section 366A,
342, 354A, 506, 509, 109 I.P.C. Section 5(1) r/w Section 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 9 & 10 of Prevention of Child
Marriage Act and Section 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(w)(i) of SC,
ST (POA) Act, 1989 against A1 to A11. The present appellant is
arraigned as A5 in the case, he is none other than the father of
the victim/complainant in the case. Therefore, the complainant as
well as A5 belongs to same community. Hence, prima facie the
3
offence under the provisions of SC, ST (POA) Act has no
application to the appellant/A5 in the case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/A5 would further submit
that he filed petition before the Special Court vide Crl.M.P.No.321
of 2025 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 482
of BNSS for anticipatory bail. The learned Special Court refused
the application vide order dated 01.07.2025. Hence, the
appellant/A5 preferred the appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the
SC, ST (POA) Act. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of
Kerala and another1 the appellant can maintain application
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail.
5. She would further submit that the F.I.R. in the case would
disclose that the alleged offence was occurred on 14.05.2024.
The victim presented the report to police after one year on
19.04.2025. Further, a reading of the report presented by the
victim does not disclose any overt acts committed by the
appellant/A5.
1
2024 LawSuit (SC) 704
4
6. The learned trial Court without considering the above facts
and circumstances, erroneously dismissed the application under
the impugned order. She would further argue that the learned
trial Court observed that as per the case diary, A1 and A4
confessed before mediator about the involvement of A5.
Confession alleged to be made by co-accused shall not be taken
into consideration during the proceedings for bail. It shall be
considered only during trial. Therefore, dismissal of the
application by the learned Special Judge is not sustainable in law.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
notice was served on the grandmother of the victim, since victim
is not available to the police, as per Section 15 (A) of provisions
of the SC/ST (POA) Act. None appeared for the defacto-
complainant.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal.
However, he would submit that investigation in the case was
concluded, and charge sheet was laid before the Special Court.
Arrest of A2, A3, A5 to A11 could not be effected, as they are
absconding.
5
9. Learned counsel for the appellant in reply would submit that
A6 to A10 were released on anticipatory bail as per orders of this
Court in Crl.A.No.410 of 2025 on 07.07.2025
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs.
State of Kerala and another, considered the application under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 482 of B.N.S.S.
2023 i.e., Anticipatory Bail and held as under:
“In our opinion, the aforesaid is the only test that the court
should apply, when an accused prays for anticipatory bail in
connection with any offence alleged to have been
committed under the provisions of the Act, 1989. In a given
case, an accused may argue that although the allegations
levelled in the FIR or the complaint do disclose the
commission of an offence under the Act, 1989, yet the FIR
or the complaint being palpably false on account of political
or private vendetta, the court should consider the plea for
grant of anticipatory bail despite the specific bar of Section
18 of the Act, 1989. However, if the accused puts forward
the case of malicious prosecution on account of political or
private vendetta then the same can be considered only by
the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code or in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However,
powers under Section 438 of the CrPC cannot be exercised
once the contents of the complaint/FIR disclose a prima
6facie case. In other words, if all the ingredients necessary
for constituting the offence are borne out from the
complaint, then the remedy of anticipatory bail becomes
unavailable to the accused.”
11. In the case on hand, the admitted facts would show that the
present appellant/A5 is none other than father of the
victim/complainant in the case. They belong to same community.
Therefore, prima facie the provisions relating to the alleged
offence under the provisions of SC/AT(POA) Act may not be
applicable to the appellant. The report presented by the victim
dies not contain any overt acts attributed against the
appellant/A5, or his role in the offence in any manner.
12. The learned Special Court dismissed the application on the
ground that the case diary discloses that A1 to A4 made
confessional statements to the police during investigation, and
said statements contain the name of the appellant/A5. As rightly
argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, generally,
confessional statements made by co-accused would not be
considered in bail proceedings. It will be considered during the
trial as per section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
7
13. Therefore, in the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Special
Court under challenge is not sustainable in law. On account of
peculiar facts attached to the case of the appellant/A5, which
would prima facie show that the provisions under SC/AT (POA)
Act has no application to the appellant/A-5, application U/s.438
Cr.P.C. corresponding to 482 of BNSS, 2023, filed by the
appellant before the Special Court is maintainable, particularly, in
the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred above.
Further, the other circumstances in the case, which would show
that investigation has been completed, and there is no
requirement of custodial interrogation of the appellant/A5, he shall
be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The appellant/A5 shall appear before the Special Court, within
15 days from today and on such appearance, the Special Court,
shall release the appellant/A5 on bail, on his execution personal
bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two
sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the Special
Judge;
8
(ii) The Appellant/A5 shall not intimidate/annoy the victim or her
family members in any manner;
(iii) The Appellant/A5 shall not leave the country without
permission of the trial Court;
iv) If the Appellant/A5 violates any of the above conditions, the
prosecution is at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation
of the bail.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Dated: 19.08.2025
Pmk
9
93
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 551 of 2025
Date: 19.08.2025
Pmk
[ad_1]
Source link