Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Chandra Srinivasu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8655 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the
petitioners/A.8 to A.11 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with
Crime No.272 of 2024 of Mandapeta Town Police Station,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 126(2) 115(2),351(2)
and 79 read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Heard arguments of Sri V.Sai Kumar, the learned counsel
for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
3. Perused the record.
4. F.I.R. in this crime was registered on 31.10.2024.
According to prosecution, the crime incident occurred in the
following circumstances:
2
On 31.10.2024 at Satya Sree Cinema Theater the de facto
complainant and his sister were leaning against a motorcycle and
in the process the motorcycle fell down and it‟s oil tank got
dented. Thereafter between the accused party and the victim
party dispute arose and that did not subside even when others
tried to pacify. It was in that regard the accused allegedly abused
the victim and his party by their caste name and insulted them
and they beat them.
5. Praying for pre-arrest bail on behalf of A.8 to A.11 the
learned counsel for petitioners submits that the facts on record do
not prima facie indicate any caste atrocity and in the given facts
and circumstances of the case, the petitioners may be granted
the relief.
6. As against it, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
representing respondent No.1-State submits that an anticipatory
bail before this Court is not maintainable by virtue of Section 14A
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, „the SCs and STs Act, 1989‟) and
cited the following rulings:
3
7. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction of this Court in
entertaining an anticipatory bail petition has come up for
consideration now.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners urges this Court that if facts
alleged do not prima facie indicate a case of caste atrocity, this
Court is entitled to entertain an anticipatory bail petition and cited
the following precedent:
3. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India7
1
2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322
2
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5897
3
2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472
4
2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 1336
5
2019 (9) SCC 154
6
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601
7
AIR 2020 SC 1036
4
9. The point that falls for consideration is:
“Whether Section 14A of the SCs and STs Act, 1989
is a bar for considering this petition seeking pre-
arrest bail.”
10. Section 14A of the SCs and STs Act, 1989 reads as below:
“14A. Appeals:–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an
appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not
being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an
Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and
on law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court
against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive
Special Court granting or refusing bail.(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall
be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of
the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided
that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry
of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the8
1993CRILJ3508
5appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal
within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no
appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of
one hundred and eighty days.
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far
as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months
from the date of admission of the appeal.”
11. A plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail is one that is
governed by provisions of BNSS, and the learned Special Court
draws its power to entertain such bail petitions even in those
cases where offences under the SCs and STs Act, 1989 are
alleged. In the rulings cited by the learned counsel for petitioners
their Lordships were pleased to consider Sections 18 and 18A of
the SCs and STs Act, 1989 and held that those provisions require
a judicial consideration as to whether the case alleged involve an
accusation of commission of offences under the SCs and STs
Act, 1989. Thus, in P.Surendran‟s case (supra 5), their
Lordships were pleased to hold that as to whether facts alleged
prima facie show an accusation of having committed an offence
under the SCs and STs Act, 1989 is a matter that has to be
considered only on the judicial side but not on the administrative
side and every Court where such an application is filed was
6
obliged to entertain it and then dispose of the applications in
accordance with law. It requires a mention here that all the
rulings cited by the learned counsel for petitioners do not pertain
to Section 14A of the SCs and STs Act, 1989. It has to be
mentioned here that Sub-Section (2) of Section 14A of the SCs
and STs Act, 1989 mentions that notwithstanding anything
provided for appeals, an appeal as against an order of bail or an
order of refusing to grant bail passed by the Special Court the
applicant is permitted to prefer an appeal before the High Court.
When the statute had made it clear that the jurisdiction to
consider a regular bail or an anticipatory bail is only on appellate
side by the High Court, by very implication it is clear that High
Court cannot entertain such applications on its original concurrent
jurisdiction. The principle is quite simple. A Court which is vested
with the appellate jurisdiction cannot also hold original jurisdiction
since both the jurisdictions cannot lie with one forum. This Court
in Nakka Nagireddy‟s case (supra 1) had ruled that an
anticipatory bail petition on its original concurrent jurisdiction is
not maintainable before the High Court. This Court in Deepak
Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh9 had ruled that a
9
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16667
7
regular bail petition cannot be entertained by this Court on its
original concurrent jurisdiction. The other rulings cited by the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are also to the same effect.
12. In the above-mentioned circumstances, this Court finds that
it is incorrect on part of the petitioners in requesting this Court to
entertain jurisdiction that has not been vested with this Court.
Therefore, the point is answered against the petitioners.
13. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. It is made
clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate
petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. If
any such applications are filed, the learned Special Court has to
entertain them on judicial side and dispose of them in accordance
with law.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 24.12.2024
Ivd
8
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8655 of 2024
Date: 24.12.2024
Ivd
