APHC010352112024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3365]

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5671/2024

Between:

Mr. Vallabhneni Vamsi Mohan ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. V.Devi Satya Sri

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to Yes/No

see the fair copy of the Order?

_____________________________

Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

3

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

* HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

+ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5671/2024

% 20.02.2025

# Between:

Mr. Vallabhneni Vamsi Mohan ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of A P ... RESPONDENT

! Counsel for Petitioner : Ms. V.Devi Satya Sri

^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri Siddarth Luthra,

the learned Senior Counsel &

Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana,

the learned Public Prosecutor &

Sri K.Sandeep, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor

4

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2024) 3 SCC 224

2. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601

3. ILR 2021 KAR 4783

4. 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322

5. 2024 APHC 40234

6. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 472

7. 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742

8. 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087

9. 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9794

10. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660/2023 INSC 736

The Court made the following:

5

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5671 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (Section 438 of Code of

Criminal Procedure), is filed by the petitioner/A.71 seeking

anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.137 of 2023 of

Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and

506 read with 149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material

collected, added Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and

Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Heard arguments of Ms. V.Devi Satya Sri, the learned

counsel for petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing online and Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the

learned Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Sandeep, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

6

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

3. As against the above anticipatory bail petition, a detailed

counter was filed by the respondent-State.

4. This criminal petition pertains to Crime No.137 of 2023 of

Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By this petition the

accused/A.71 prays for pre-arrest bail. The crime incident

allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a written information

dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered. The

scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, Gannavaram.

Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga caste, which is a

scheduled caste, was computer operator working in Telugu

Desam Party office and living in the said office.

5. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred

the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation

commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were

general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam

Party got the mandate and came into power. Thereafter

investigation continued further. The allegations and counter

allegations in this case disclosed the rift between both the political

parties. Petitioners contend that this is a case falsely alleged

against him out of political vendetta. According to the State, for

7

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

political reasons there was inadequate investigation soon after

commission of the offence. By the time this crime incident

occurred the petitioner/Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan was

Member of Legislative Assembly for Gannavaram Assembly

Constituency.

6. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during

afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni

Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting

remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh

and their family members and used indecent language. In

response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted

a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and

condemned the statements made by the opponent political party

people.

7. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly

occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M.

Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party

office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused

enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned

8

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the

place.

8. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100

persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu

Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and

various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi

Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered

the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two computers

and two televisions and caused tremendous panic among

everyone available there. In the first information report the de

facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 accused.

It also made a mention about four named accused who came

upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further case of

the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and some

of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets seriously

damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and TS 10

EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured petrol on

the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The version of

the de facto complainant is that there were police people at the

Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute spectators.

During the investigation it was found that some of the accused

9

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one room were

found with charred marks.

9. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused

were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According

to prosecution, by the time of this petition at least 44 accused

were absconding. After gaining contact with about 28 accused

they were questioned about their mobile phones and only seven

out of them surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the

accused furnished false information about the instruments they

used and their mobile numbers.

10. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected.

When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on

their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based

on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against the

petitioner and other accused by the prosecution stating that they

were all involved in this crime incident.

11. The substance of the contentions raised by the petitioner:

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime.

The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was

10

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and

place certain incidents occurred which resulted in

registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed

accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam

Party as against members of YSR Congress Party

members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime

Nos.132, 133, 134 and 135 of 2023.

 On 25-11-2022 Mr.Pattabhi Kommareddy made defamatory

allegations against the petitioner. On 01-12-2022 the

petitioner got a Defamation Notice issued to Mr.Pattabhi

Kommareddy. On 18-02-2023 the petitioner having filed a

criminal defamation complaint in Court, gave a sworn

statement in Court before the learned XII Metropolitan

Magistrate, at Gannavaram. The said criminal case for

defamation was taken on file as C.C.No.97 of 2024 on the

file of the Court of XII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Gannavaram. The petitioner also filed a civil suit for

defamation against Mr. Pattabhi Kommareddy which is

taken on file as O.S.No.05 of 2023 on the file of the Court

of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram. On

18-02-2023 the petitioner held a Press Conference giving

11

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

details of the defamation case filed against Mr.Pattabhi

Kommareddy.

 F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against

the petitioner.

 After a change in political party in power witnesses were

planted and false evidence is created.

 Initially the investigation officer served Section 41A Cr.P.C.

notice. That was complied with. However, after the

change of political Government police have unlawfully

brought additional penal provisions to nullify the rightful

reliefs available to the petitioner.

12. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed:

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with

149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,

‘the Act, 1989’). Since caste atrocity was one of the offences

alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Krishna,

the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram took up

12

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

investigation. After recording the statements of about six

witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the

Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the

Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those

provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent

of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and

scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an

alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got

added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It

also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C.

13. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under

the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 are alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that

anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable by virtue of Sections

18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is that the

High Court does not now possess concurrent original jurisdiction

for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only appellate

jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and

therefore, this petition is to be dismissed. In such circumstances,

this Court requested the learned counsels on both sides to

13

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

address arguments in that regard since the questions concerning

jurisdictional bar has arisen.

14. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsel for

petitioner wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A of

the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no

prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is

made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued

that this Court in this petition, during pendency of hearing,

granted interim protection and therefore, the same may be made

absolute since the petitioner has not violated anything thereafter.

The strenuous argument put forth is that this Court has to

consider the merits of the matter and dispose of the same.

15. Before proceeding further it requires a mention here. That

in the present Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban

Police Station, Krishna District various accused had filed similar

anticipatory bail petitions in Criminal Petition Nos.5197, 4896,

5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652,

5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, 5920 and 9083 of 2024. Those petitions

and the present petition were taken up for hearing and substantial

arguments were submitted and thereafter while the other

14

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

petitioners prayed for disposal of their petitions only the present

petitioner, citing some inconvenience to the counsel wanted

another date for making further submissions. Acceding to the

request the present petition was adjourned to a different date.

The other petitions were disposed of by this Bench by a common

order dated 06.01.2025. In that order this Court fully considered

the purport of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and dismissed all

those petitions.

16. It is thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2025. The

prayer in which reads as below:

“In the given circumstances stated above, it just and

necessary in the interests of Justice, Judicial Discipline and

Propriety, and in view of the fact that this very same High

Court of Andhra Pradesh had in a plethora of cases

granted anticipatory bail where offences under SC ST

(POA) Act were involved, it is in the fitness of things that

this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to refer to a Larger

Bench of this Hon'ble Court framing the question whether

Sec.14A of the SC ST (POA) Act 1989 is a bar to the

maintainability of an application for anticipatory bail under

Sec.438 Cr.P.C. or Sec.482 BNSS and pass such other

order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case.”

15

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

17. In this application two aspects are raised. That this very

Bench in Criminal Petition No.4487 of 2024 in Crime No.52 of

2024 of Disha Urban Police Station of Krishna District and in

Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 in Crime No.67 of 2024 of

Chapadu Police Station of YSR Kadapa District granted

anticipatory bail in July, 2024. The other Benches of this Court

granted anticipatory bail althroughout in the following matters:

Sl.No. Criminal Petition No. Order dated

1. 5777 of 2024 13.12.2024

2. 6714 of 2024 18.12.2024

3. 9033 of 2024 31.12.2024

4. 836 of 2021 18.02.2021

5. 3276 of 2023 11.05.2023

6. 5608 of 2022 03.08.2022

16

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

18. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that judicial

discipline envisages that a coordinate Bench follow the decision

of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not

agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the

matter may be referred only to a larger Bench. For this

proposition the learned counsel for the petitioner cited Mary

Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary

1

.

19. In contest, the State filed a detailed counter stating that in

the other matters before other Benches Section 14A of the Act,

1989 was not dealt with. Therefore, they cannot be said to

conflict with the decisions rendered by this Bench of the Court.

This Bench has been consistent in its rulings from the time

occasion arose to this Bench to consider the true purport of

Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, the application for

reference is misconceived.

20. On behalf of the petitioner, a reply counter was also filed.

21. For petitioner, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed. A sworn affidavit of

accused No.71/the petitioner is filed. It narrated the great

services rendered by the petitioner to the society and the

1

(2024) 3 SCC 224

17

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

vendetta of the political opponents and the prosecutions non-

insistence before other Benches about Section 14A of the Act,

1989. The clear tenor of the affidavit and the averments in it are

that prosecution, despite change of roster for bail matters, put its

efforts to have the matter listed before this Bench.

22. The points that fall for consideration are:

1. Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under

Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 is taken away by Sub-Section

(2) of Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989?

2. Whether there are conflicting judgments of

coordinate Benches of this Court requiring any

reference to a larger Bench on the above

referred jurisdictional issue?

POINT No.1:

23. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of

and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive

18

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those

Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to

take remand of the accused and consider applications for bails.

There is no provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects

that are to be considered by those Courts when they entertain

bail petitions. Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds.

It consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of

bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences.

Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the extent that is required alone is

extracted here:

“438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending

arrest:

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be

arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the

Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the

event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that

Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the

following factors, namely:-

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

19

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to

whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on

conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of

injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so

arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an

interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:

Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be,

the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order

under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for

grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer

incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the

applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in

such application.”

24. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who

anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could

move such applications either before this Court or before the

Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the

petitioner has straightaway moved this Court for his prayer for

pre-arrest bail.

25. The first submission of Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the

learned Public Prosecutor for the State is that in cases of caste

atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of

20

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as

below:

“18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons

committing an offence under the Act .— Nothing in

section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case

involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of

having committed an offence under this Act.

18A. No enquiry or approval required.—(1) For the

purposes of this Act,— (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be

required for registration of a First Information Report against

any person; or

(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the

arrest, if necessary, of any person,

against whom an accusation of having committed an

offence under this Act has been made and no procedure

other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall

apply.

(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply

to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or

order or direction of any Court.”

26. The strong response from the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would

apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist

pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act,

21

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under

the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the

allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such

circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not

apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from

granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of

this argument, strength is taken from the ruling of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of

Kerala

2

.

27. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for

the petitioner this Court is required to consider the merits of the

matter so as to find out whether the facts alleged do make out a

prima facie case disclosing caste atrocity or not. However,

according to the State, even such a view cannot be taken by this

Court by virtue of the interdict contained in Section 14A of the

Act, 1989 and support is taken on the ruling of Lokesh v. The

State of Karnataka

3

. Therefore, it is required to notice what this

provision says. The provision reads as below:

2

2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601

3

ILR 2021 KAR 4783

22

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

“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 the

appellant 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.”

28. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 the

petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in

the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the

23

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the

concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails

provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as

though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After

inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the

aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms

of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the

petitioner has moved bail petition straightaway before this Court.

At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal against an

order passed by the Special Court with reference to bails. It shall

be stated that on the same subject matter High Court could not

be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction as well as

appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is different from

anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory bails this Court

holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it holds only

appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a petition for

anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court resulted in

dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the petitioner the

petitioner would have to move only another bail petition before

this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in violation of what is

clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. It is to be seen

24

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

that the question of bail presupposes detention or custody of the

person. In a case where a person is arrested he prays for a

regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail in the event of granting

the relief, it has no effect unless and until the accused is arrested.

In other words, the order of anticipatory bail comes into effect

only after a person is arrested and not otherwise. In contrast to

regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail the order is obtained in

advance. In regular bails it was obtained after arrest. The timing

at which a prayer is made, and an order is granted, have no

relevance when it comes to operation of those orders as in both

the cases they come into operation only when a person is

arrested and thus in custody. In such view of the matter the word

bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 encompasses regular

bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, it must be stated that

an application for bail or anticipatory bail can be filed only before

the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, as the case may

be, and not before the High Court. An order granting or refusing

bail or anticipatory bail by the Special Court or Exclusive Special

Court can be assailed before this Court invoking its appellate

jurisdiction provided in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. This Court

had deliberated these aspects on earlier occasions when similar

25

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

questions were raised and it reached to the same conclusions

and reference can be made to the following:

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.

4

2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

5

.

29. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts.

Reference can be made to the following:

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.

6

2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka

7

3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil

8

4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

9

30. One more contention addressed at the bar is that this

Constitutional Court holds immense power and could exercise

inherent jurisdiction and consider granting the prayer. In this

regard, a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in

4

2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024

5

2024 APHC 40234 Order dated 22.10.2024

6

2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472

7

2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742

8

2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087

26

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

Shajan Skaria’s case

10

would be sufficient here. At paragraph

No.49 their Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the

case of malicious prosecution on account of political or private

vendetta such aspects 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 of India. However, powers under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the

contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In

fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for

consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved

before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was

preferred before the High Court.

31. In summation, where the complaint alleges commission of

an offence punishable under the Act, 1989 the Special Court or

the Exclusive Special Court can alone exercise the jurisdiction, in

the first instance, to hear and dispose of applications for bail or

anticipatory bail. It is not open to the High Court to exercise the

original or concurrent jurisdiction. In view of Sub-Section (2) of

9

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9794

10

Supra 2

27

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

Section 14A of the Act, 1989 the High Court holds only appellate

Jurisdiction. Therefore, it is impermissible for this Court to look

into the substance of the allegations of crime made against the

accused. The jurisdictional bar is complete. In this view of the

matter the earnest submission of the learned counsel for

petitioner to decide on the merits of the case cannot be acceded

to.

32. This Court refrains from delving into the facts and the

principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such

discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both

sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate

Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this

Court in appeal. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

POINT No.2:

33. The present contention pertains to the need for consistent

rulings. The point is proposed stating that this Court in some of

the earlier orders considered prayers for bail where offences were

raised under various penal provisions of the Act, 1989. The

further argument is that the other Benches of this Court have

been considering bail petitions where offences alleged are under

28

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

various penal provisions of the Act, 1989. The upshot of the

argument is the prayer for referring the matter to a larger Bench

to settle the inconsistent rulings of this Court.

34. It was in October and November 2024 only this Court had

the occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and

accordingly decided that this Court does not any more hold

original concurrent jurisdiction and it holds only appellate

jurisdiction vide Nakka Nagireddy’s case

11

and Deepak Kumar

Tala’s case

12

. Earlier to these two rulings such questions did not

fall for consideration before this Bench and therefore they were

disposed of on mere factual merits.

35. Coming to the bail petitions disposed of by other learned

Judges of this Court which were mentioned in the earlier

paragraphs it is to be recorded here that on a perusal of those

orders it is seen that those petitions were disposed of only based

on facts available on record and the jurisdictional aspect in terms

of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 was not considered. A decision

cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not

decide. A reference to the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

11

supra 4

29

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

Supreme Court of India in Secunderabad Club v. CIT

13

is

relevant in this regard:

“19. What is binding, therefore, is the principle underlying a

decision which must be discerned in the context of the

question(s) involved in that case from which the decision

takes its colour. In a subsequent case, a decision cannot be

relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide.

Therefore, the context or the question, while considering

which, a judgment has been rendered assumes significance.

21. In the context of understanding a judgment, it is well

settled that the words used in a judgment are not to be

interpreted as those of a statute. This is because the words

used in a judgment should be rendered and understood

contextually and are not intended to be taken literally.

Further, a decision is not an authority for what can be read

into it by implication or by assigning an assumed intention of

the judges and inferring from it a proposition of law which

the judges have not specifically or expressly laid down in the

pronouncement. In other words, the decision is an authority

for what is specifically decides and not what can logically be

deduced therefrom.”

36. In that view of the matter there is no occasion to accede to

the prayer for reference to a larger Bench.

12

supra 5

13

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660/2023 INSC 736

30

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

37. This Court in the present Crime No.137 of 2023 disposed of

batch of matters by a common order dated 06.01.2025 holding

that this Court cannot have original jurisdiction as well as

appellate jurisdiction at one and the same time and dismissed

those petitions. Learned counsel for petitioner placed the

following two orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

1. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.770/2025 as against

the order dated 06.01.2025 of this Court in Criminal

Petition No.5197/2024. The order dated 20.01.2025 of

their Lordships reads as below:

“Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.

In addition to the usual mode, liberty is granted to

the petitioner to serve notice through the Standing

Counsel for the respondent/State.

By way of ad interim order and in the event of

arrest, the petitioner be released on bail in connection

with FIR No.137 of 2023 dated 22

nd

February, 2023

registered at Police Station Gannavaram UPS,

District Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, subject to him

executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), with one or

more sureties in the like amount.

31

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

Considering the fact that the petitioner himself

belongs to a Scheduled Caste category, the above

order has been passed.

However, the Petitioner is directed to cooperate

with the investigation and report to the Investigating

Officer as and when directed to do so.”

2. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1497-1511/2025 as

against the order dated 06.01.2025 in the remaining

criminal petitions their Lordships were pleased to pass

an order on 31.01.2025 which reads as below:

“We are not inclined to entertain these petitions.

Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are

dismissed.

However, we leave it open for the petitioners to

approach the Trial Court/Special Court under Section

438 Cr.P.C. forthwith and for a period of two weeks,

no coercive measures be taken against the

petitioners.

It is made clear that this interim order is being

passed without looking into the merits of the matters.

The Trial Court/Special Court would be at liberty to

pass an independent order on the applications so

filed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.”

32

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

38. In the first referred order of their Lordships it is seen that

the order of this Court is available for consideration. In such

circumstances this Court is of the considered view that the prayer

made by the petitioner herein for referring the matter to a larger

Bench does not merit for consideration. Therefore, this point is

answered against the petitioner and accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025

and I.A.No.2 of 2025 are dismissed.

39. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. It is made

clear that the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate petition

for appropriate relief before the appropriate Court. In the event

such petition is filed, the Court where it is filed is to consider the

petition on judicial side and dispose of it in accordance with law.

Any observations made herein are confined to this petition and

they have no bearing on the merits or demerits of the case on

either side.

________________________

Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

Date: 20.02.2025

Note: LR Copy to be marked

(B/o)

Ivd

33

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.P.No.5671 of 2024

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5671 of 2024

Date: 20.02.2025

Ivd