Anticipatory Bail Denied for MLA Candidate Pinnelli Reddy Citing Grave Offence, Criminal Antecedents, and Witness Tampering Risk: Andhra Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-03

Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to MLA Candidate in EVM Smashing and Assault Case

HYDERABAD – The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy, a sitting MLA and candidate in the Macherla Assembly Constituency, in connection with election day violence that included the smashing of an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) and a subsequent assault on a political agent.

The court, in its order for CC 3788 / 2024, concluded that the gravity of the offence, the petitioner's criminal history, and the significant risk of witness tampering and hindering the investigation made it an unsuitable case for the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail.

---

Background of the Case

The case stems from events on May 13, 2024, the day of the general elections in Andhra Pradesh. The prosecution alleges that Mr. Reddy entered a polling booth in Palavaigate, forcibly threw an EVM to the ground, and broke it. When confronted by the de-facto complainant, an agent for the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Mr. Reddy allegedly threatened him.

Shortly after, the prosecution claims Mr. Reddy instigated his followers to attack the complainant outside the polling booth. A group of approximately 15 individuals allegedly assaulted the complainant with sticks, iron rods, and knives, with one accused striking him on the head with an iron rod, causing injury. The police registered a case against Mr. Reddy and others under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), and The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Contentions: Senior Counsel Sri T. Nirajnan Reddy, representing Mr. Reddy, argued that the case was a malicious fabrication intended to politically sideline his client. Key arguments included:

- Delayed FIR: The incident occurred on May 13, but the FIR was lodged ten days later, on May 23, allegedly after Mr. Reddy sought legal recourse in a related matter.

- Malicious Prosecution: Multiple FIRs were filed concerning the election day events to create the impression of a serious crime and circumvent legal safeguards.

- Lack of Evidence for Attempt to Murder: The prosecution failed to produce a wound certificate for the complainant, and the claim of treatment by an RMP doctor was questionable, making the charge under Section 307 IPC inapplicable.

- No Need for Custodial Interrogation: The police had already gathered evidence, and custodial interrogation was not required.

State's Contentions: Special Counsel Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail plea, asserting:

- Grave Offence: The petitioner, a sitting MLA, was the primary accused in a violent incident that undermined the electoral process.

- Criminal Antecedents: Mr. Reddy is a habitual offender with 11 other criminal cases pending against him, including two of a similar nature involving violence and attempt to murder.

- Risk of Witness Tampering: Given his influence as a four-time MLA, there was a severe apprehension that Mr. Reddy would intimidate witnesses and the victim, thereby derailing the investigation.

- Ongoing Investigation: The investigation is incomplete, and granting bail at this stage would prejudice a fair and thorough probe.

Court's Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously evaluated the case against the established legal principles for granting anticipatory bail, primarily citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra .

The court addressed several key issues:

- On the Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) Charge: The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that the absence of a wound certificate negates the charge. It clarified that for Section 307, the "intention or knowledge" to cause death is paramount, not the actual severity of the injury caused. The court held that such intent can be deduced from the circumstances of the attack.

- On Multiple FIRs: The court found, prima facie, that the different FIRs related to distinct incidents with different victims and locations, and it could not be concluded that they were registered merely to harass the petitioner.

- On Criminal Antecedents: The court placed significant weight on the list of 11 pending cases against Mr. Reddy, stating, "The pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases itself demonstrates the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner."

Pivotal Observations from the Judgment

"The possibility of the investigation being affected once the Petitioner is released on bail is very much foreseen... Granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner could hinder the ongoing investigation. There is a concern regarding threats to witnesses, and a prima facie case implicating the Petitioner in a serious offence exists."

"Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the gravity of the offence, and by the settled principle of law that the power to grant bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances, and no such circumstances having been made out in this case... this Court to conclude that this is not a suitable case for granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition, denying anticipatory bail to Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy. The court clarified that its observations are preliminary and limited to the bail application, and the investigating agency is free to proceed with its investigation without being influenced by the order.

This decision underscores the judiciary's reluctance to grant pre-arrest bail in cases involving serious allegations of election violence, especially when the accused has a history of similar offences and holds a position of influence.