Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Katta Ramachandra Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 February, 2025
APHC010025222025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 65/2025
Between:
KATTA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O SRINIVASULU REDDY, HINDU, MALE
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC- CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, D.NO.3-6-
696, FLAT NO. 302, RAGHAVENDRA ROYAL FORT APARTMENT STREET
NO. 12, HIMAYATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD-500029.
...APELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.
...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Accused
No.18 seeking to set aside the Order dated 10.01.2025 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024 in Crime No.183 of 2024 on the file of the Court of
V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and to grant anticipatory bail
to him.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, there were land disputes
between the family of the Appellant/Accused No.18 and Katta Ramireddy,
Sridhar Reddy and Padmamma. In that view, both the families are using SC
Madiga community people as pawns to vie against each other. That being so,
2
on 22.10.2024 at 2.45 a.m., all the Accused formed into an unlawful assembly
armed with deadly weapons and petrol bottles, went to the cattle shed of the
Defacto Complainant, knocked the door with sticks, knives and rods and when
the inmates could not come out, the Accused had broke the cement window,
threw the petrol bottles into the room and set fire. Accused No.1 hacked the
M.Hari Prasad with a knife on his head and Accused No.2 beat him with a rod
as a result said Hari Prasad collapsed. All the Accused also attacked the De
facto Complainant with sticks and caused injuries. Hari Prasad sustained
head injury and died instantaneously. Based on the complaint given by the De
facto Complainant, a case in Crime No.183 of 2024 on the file of Chillakur
Police Station, has been registered against all the Accused.
3. Heard Ms.Y.L.Sivakalpana Reddy, learned counsel for the
Appellant/Accused No.18 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.18 would submit that the
Appellant herein and Accused No.1 are brothers and the Appellant is a
Chartered Accountant. Learned counsel would further submit that, in view of
the property disputes between the family of the Appellant and one
Narapureddy Sridhar Reddy, the Appellant and his family members are falsely
implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel would submit that the
Appellant was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, as
such, the offences alleged do not attract against him. Learned counsel would
further submit that Accused Nos.22 and 24 were granted bail in the present
3
crime vide Order dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2024 by the learned
trial Judge and Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 19, 23 and 26 were also granted bail
vide Order dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024. Learned counsel
would further submit that the Appellant herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024
seeking anticipatory bail before the trial Court and the same was dismissed
vide Order dated 10.01.2025. Learned counsel would further submit that the
allegations leveled against the Appellant are false and frivolous. It is
submitted that, except the allegation of abetment, there is no allegation against
the Appellant. Learned counsel would further submit that, since the Appellant
was at Hyderabad at the relevant time, the offence under SCST Act is not
maintainable against him. Since no prima facie case is made out against the
for the offence under SCST Act, the Appellant is entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that, the Appellant/Accused No.18 is a
Chartered Accountant at Hyderabad and with a view to tarnish his reputation
and to cause humiliation, he was dragged into the present crime. Hence,
prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant. In support of her
contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala and another1
and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors2.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the
Appellant/Accused No.18 is the main culprit in the present crime. It is further
submitted that, at the instigation of the Appellant, the remaining Accused have
1
2024 (6) Supreme 321
2
AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312
4
committed the alleged offences. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would
submit that, four other crimes have also been registered against the family of
the Appellant and the family of Narapureddy Sridhar Reddy. It is submitted
that the Appellant/Accused No.18 has played a key role in the commission of
the alleged offences. It is submitted that there was phone conversation
between the Appellant herein and the main Accused, who alleged to have
committed the said offences, which shows the participation and instigation of
the Appellant in the present crime. There are no tenable grounds to grant
anticipatory bail to the Appellant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Perusal of the material on record would disclose that, the anticipatory
bail application filed by the Appellant/Accused No.18 before the trial Court has
been dismissed vide Order dated 10.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024. The
main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that, the Appellant
was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, as such, no prima
facie case is made out against the Appellant either for the offences under BNS
or under SCST Act. In the absence of prima facie allegations, the Appellant is
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Whereas, it is the contention of the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that, the case diary shows, during the
course of investigation, the Police have collected call data of the Appellant and
it shows he had conversation with the main Accused with regard to the
commission of the alleged offences and it amounts to participation of the
Appellant in the alleged crime directly, though his presence was not there.
5
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Shajan Skaria‘s case (supra),
held that the Courts can entertain an application under Sec.438 of the CrPC if
there is no prima facie case made out against an individual for offences
committed under SCST Act. In the instant case, it is alleged against the
Appellant that there were previous disputes between the Appellant and his
men on one side and the victim and his men on the other side from long time.
Further, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the call data
of the Appellant would show that he had telephonic conversation with the main
Accused all the night on the date of alleged incident with regard to the
commission of the alleged offences. As such, the physical absence of the
Appellant at the relevant time and place, is not a ground to consider his
application for anticipatory bail. Further, it is not the case of the Appellant that
he does not have the knowledge of the caste of the victim.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, in view of the prima facie allegations
against the Appellant with regard to the commission of the alleged offences,
and the role alleged to have been played by him, the judgments relied on by
the learned counsel for the Appellant are not helpful to consider the application
of the Appellant. As the material shows that the Appellant also involved in the
other crimes, there is every possibility of threatening the witnesses in the event
of grant of anticipatory bail to him at this stage. Though the impugned Order
dated 10.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024 by the learned
V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore is on different grounds, it
does not warrant any interference of this Court in this appeal. In view of the
6
facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that,
though it is not the stage to decide the culpability of the Appellant, in view of
the allegations to prima facie attract the offence under the provisions of SCST
Act against the Petitioner, the question of granting anticipatory bail to him,
does not arise. The appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
Date:12.02.2025
Dinesh
7
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.65 of 2025
DATE:12.02.2025
Dinesh
