Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
K Pratap Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 August, 2025
APHCO10430632025
EHE] lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
EEIEEi AT AMARAVATl
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHl
CRIIVllNAL APPEAL NO: 568 OF 2025
Appeal under Section 528 of BNSS against the Order, dated 01.08.2025
passed in Crl.MPNo.890 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of
cases under SCs and STs I(POA) Act-Gum-VI Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurjlooi, Kurnooi District.
Between:
1. K. Pratap Reddy, S/o.T.Venkat Reddy, aged 35 years, H.No.81/5-B-30,
Raghavendra Nagar, Raghunath Complex, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool
District. (A3)
2. N.Suresh Kumar, S/o.N.Gopal, aged 30 years, H.No.40-38A,
K.E.Madanna Nagar, Kurnool Town. (A5)
...AppeIIants
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Through its
SHO, Kurnool ll Town Police Station, High Court ofA.P, Amaravati.
...Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for AppeIIant.-Sri Thathireddy Ashok SrI-VaStaVa
Counsel for the Respondent.- Additional Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following:
I I
£'
APHCO10430632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
EHE] PRADESH [3368]
Hffi: ( s p ec i atTo:gMifaiAJVufi:i i ct i o n )
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO|. 568/2025
Between :
1.K PRATAP REDDY, S/O. T. VENKAT REDDY, AGED 35
yEARS, H.NO.81/5-B-30, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,
RAGHUNATH COMPLEX, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL
DISTRICT.
2.N SURESH KIJMAR, S/O. N. GOPAL, AGED 30 YEARS,
H.NO.40-38A, K.E.MADANNA NAGAR, KURNOOL TOWN.
.MAPELLANT(S)
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Publ-lc
prosecutor, Through its Sho, Kumool ll Town Police Station,
High Court of A.P,
...RESPODENT
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying
that the High Court may be pleased tO may be Pleased tO recall
the NBWs issued against the Appellants/Accused No.3 and 5 on
28.07.2025 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of cases
under sos and sTs (PoA) Act - Gum -VI Additional Sessions
court, Kurnool and pass such
IA NO:1 OF 2025
petl-tI[On under Section 151 CPC pray]'ng that in the
circumstances stated in the affI-davit fI-led in support of the
pe{i{ion, the High court may be pleased to dispense with the
certified copy of the order dated o1.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.890
oF 2025 on the file of specl|a[ Judge for Trl'al of cases under sos
& sTs (PoA) Act -Gum- vl Addl'tionaI Sessl-ons court, Kumool,
pending dl'sposal of the crl'ml|nal petitl'on and pass such
IA NO: 2OF 2025
petjtl'on under sec{I'On 151 CPC praying that jn the
circumstances stated in the affI-davit filed in support of the
petition, the HI'gh Court may be pleased {o enlarge the
Appellants/Accused No.3 & 5 on bail in connection with
cr.No.48/2014 of " Town police stall-on, Kurnool in scsT.SC
case No.157/2018 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of cases
under sos & sTs (PoA) Act -Gum-VI Additional Sessions court,
Kurnool and pass such
counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
t.,S
-I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO-- 568 of 2025
The Court made the following Judgment:
Heard Sri T.Ashok Srivastava, learned COunSel for the
appellants/A3 & A5 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
representing the State.
2. The present Appeal is Preferred bythe aPPe"ants/A3 & A5
under sectllon 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act,1989, challeng'lng the Order
dated o1.08.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.890 of 2025 on the file Of the
special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-
Gum-vl Additional Sess'lons Court at Kurnool.
3. Perusal of record WOuld disclose that SC/ST S.C.No.157 of
2018 on the file Of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs
and sTs (POA) Act-Gum-VI Additional Sessions Court at Kurnool
was came up for trial on 19.06,2025, on which date, the Present
appellants/A3 & A5 and some Other accused i.e., A1 & A2 did not
attend the Court.
4. Consequently, Non-Ba"able Warrants Were 'lSSued against
the appellan{s and some other accused. AppellantS and SOme
--1.ZP eS3Z9
±
other accused filed an applicatl'on {o recall the Non-Bailable
warrants on 28.07.2025. Learned trI'al Court dismissed the said
application and remanded the present appellan{sJ A1 & A2 to the
jud['cial custody. Non-Bailable warrant issued against A4 was
cancelled. La{erJ the aPPellants/A3 & A5 and other accused i.e.J
A1 & A2 filed an applicatl'on vide crI.M.P.No,890 of 2025 to
enlarge them on bail, pendI®ng trial of the case. Leamed trial
Judge djsmI'SSed the applicatl'on for the reasons assigned [|n the
impugned order. challengl|ng the same, the present Appeal came
to be filed by the appeIIants/A3 & A5.
5. During the course of arguments, I't Came {o I['ght that {hI'S
court vy'de order dated 26.06.2015 in Crl.P.No.2532 of 2015
directed the sessions Judge {o consider the bail applica{['on of the
accused, wI'{h necessary conditions. Accord]-ng!y, the learned
specI-al Court vide order dated 30.07.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.591 of
2015 fI'led by appellants and A1 & A2 enlarged the said accused
on bail, on a condition that they sha" execute personal bond for
I
Rs.10,00O/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties
to the sa{jsfactI'On of the learned Additional Judie,'aI Mag['s{ra{e of
First Class a{ Kurnool. Accordingly, the present appellants/A3 &
A5 and the other accused i.e., Al and A2 were enlarged on bail.
?``+
`.-.r33
~i-`
6. lt is also an admitted fact thatthe learned Sessions Judge
at the time of issuing Non-Bailable Warrants On 19.06.2025, did
not forfe|lt the bail bond of the appellants/A3 & A5 for breach Of
the bail conditions. Learned Sessions Judge also did not issue
any notice to the sureties forfeiting their bonds as per the
procedure contemplated under section 446 Cr.P.C.,
corresponding to section 491 B.N.S.S. Learned Sessions Judge
also did not take any steps for cancellation of the earlier bail order
referred above. Therefore, in the light Of the above facts and
c'lrcumstances, it is clear that the earlier bail granted by the
learned Special Court is in force:
7. Perusal of the impugned Order rendered by the Special
court would disclose that for the reasons not connected with facts
of the case i.e., one of the accused laughed at the Court, and that
some bar members made a request {o the presiding Officer
regarding ba" applications etc., the request of the appellants to
enlarge them on bail Was refused, instead Of considering Whether
the earlier bail is in existence, the bail bonds of the accused were
not forfeited, no notice was issued to the sureties as per Sect'lon
446 Cr.P.C., corresponding tO Section 491 BNSS, 2023, apart
from merits of the ba'll application.
\- r._se
.f=
8. ln the light offoregol-ng cI-rCumstances, the order oflearned
trial court js not sustal-nable either on facts or jn law. Therefore, I-I
I-S liable {o be set as[-de. Appellan{s/A3 & A5 sha" be enlarged on
ba" on executing a fresh personal bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees
Ten Thousand on[yt'6ach+, wl'th two sureties for a like sum each to
the satI-SfaCtj6n lof the learned trI-al Court. However, the learned
trI-a( Court js at ll'berty to take necessary steps under section 446
cr.p.c., wI-th regard to forfeI|tl-ng of the ba" bond executed by the
accused Nos.3 & 5 and the suretI'eS aS Per the earlier ba" order, l'f
the accused commI'tted breach of the ba" bond, by not attendl-ng
the court on 19.06.2025, and impose penalty I-.n acco.rc!ance wI-th
law sectl-on 446 Cr.P.C. corresponding to sectI'On 491 BNSS,
2023.
9. Accordingly, the criml-hal Appeal I-S allowed setting aside
the I-mpugned order dated o1.08.2005 I-n Crl.M.P.No.890 of 2025
on the fl'Ie of the special Judge for Trl-al of Cases under sos and
sTs (POA) Act-Gum-vl Add[-tional sessl'ons court at Kurnool.
Appellants/A3 & A5 sha" be enlarged on baI-I, on executl-ng a
fresh personal bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only)
each, wl-th two suretl'es for a like sum each, to the satjsfactl-on of
Tr5±
\`-
a q
g
the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA)
Act-Gum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge at Kurnool.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
Sd/-E KAMESWARA RAO
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-Gum-
VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
2. The Statiorl House Officer, ii To-wrl rnoiice Static-rl, Kumooi, Kurnooi
District.
3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kurnool, Kurnool District (By Speed
Post)
4. One CC to Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to the Public.Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh.[OUT]
6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh.
7. Two CD Copies
BSV
Vna
HIGH COURT
DATED:19/08/2025
JUDGMENT
CRLA NO. 568 OF 2025
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL
[ad_1]
Source link