Inti Gopala Rao vs .The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 January, 2025

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Inti Gopala Rao vs .The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 January, 2025

APHC010018932025

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                          [3396]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
                               PRESENT
   THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 22 of 2025
Between:
Inti Gopala Rao and Others                            ...APELLANT(S)
                                 AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others             ...RESPODENT(S)
Counsel for the Apellant(S):
    1. B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR
Counsel for the Respodent(S):
    1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    2. PHANI TEJA CHERUVU

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the Order

dated 02.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1124 of 2024 on the file of the Court

of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-IV

Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, arising out of Crime No.27 of 2024 of

CID Police Station, Vizianagaram.

2. Heard Sri B.Sudhakar Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellants,

Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent No.1/ State and Sri Phani Teja Cheruvu, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that the Appellants

herein are arrayed as A.1 to A.4 in the above Crime and that basing on the

very same complaint twice, the authorities enquired into the matter and
2

concluded that no contra evidence is available to proceed in the criminal case

against the Appellant No.1/ Petitioner No.1. Further, the Appellants/A.1 to A.4

have filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail before the trial Court and the

same was dismissed by way of impugned Order. Assailing the said Order,

Appellants preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel would submit that

the Trial Court has erroneously rejected the bail to the appellants merely on

the fact that respondent No.2 invoked the criminal law directly through CID

police with a delay. Further, the present criminal case has been lodged

against the Petitioners to harass them on account of political vendetta.

Learned counsel would submit that as per the report filed by the SDPO,

Bobbili, no iota of evidence of material is available supporting the version of

respondent No.2 against the Appellants.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

submit that the de facto Complainant filed an injunction before the Trial Court

stating that she has nothing to do with the complaint and has not given any

complaint against the Petitioners.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that basing on the

report given by L.W.11 before the Lokayukta, this case has been registered by

CID. Further, as observed by the Learned Trial Judge, Section 409 IPC has

no application to the facts of the present case since Appellant No.1/Petitioner

No.1 is not a public servant. Coming to the case of the Appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to

A.4, they are not shown as accused in this case as on this date. Hence, the

question of apprehension f their arrest does not arise.
3

6. In reply, learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that the

Court may pass appropriate orders directing the police to following the

guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of

Bihar1 with regard to the case of Appellant No.1/Petitioner No.1 is concerned.

Further, this appeal may be disposed of since Appellants 2 to 4/Petitioners 2

to 4 are not shown as Accused as on this date.

7. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the impugned order

passed by the Learned Sessions Judge observing that Section 409 IPC has

no application to the facts of the case as against Appellant No.1/Accused

No.1, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to direct the Police to follow

the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar‘s case

(supra). So far as the case of Appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 are concerned, as

rightly submitted by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor when they are not

shown as accused as on this day, apprehension of arrest does not arise.

Hence, this appeal is dismissed as against the Appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed.

DR VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
23.01.2025
Mjl/*

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273
4

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.A.No.22 of 2025

23.01.2025
Mjl/*