IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence and the right to bail are fundamental, particularly when evidence is insufficient to justify continued detention.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioner/A.1 has filed the Criminal Petition, as per Section 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking regular bail concerning Crime No.53 of 2024, registered at the Rentachinthala Police Station of Palnadu District.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC) and Section 131(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“RP Act”).

3. In brief, the Prosecution’s case is that on 13.05.2024, general elections were conducted in the Andhra Pradesh State. The defacto complainant, acting as an agent for the Telugu Desam Party at polling station 202 of Palavaigate, reported that the Petitioner visited the polling booth at 10:30 AM and subsequently left. Later, around noon, the Petitioner returned to the polling booth with A.2 and A.3 and allegedly damaged the EVM machine. When questioned by the defacto complainant about the incident, the Petitioner reportedly threatened him. After this altercation, the Petitioner left the polling station but returned shortly after that. Upon leaving again, polling officials closed the doors of the booth. Outside the polling booth, as soon as the complainant stepped out, the Petitioner allegedly instigated others to attack him. Following the initial incident, 15 individuals, identified as followers of the Petitioner, gathered unlawfully and retrieved weapons such as sticks, rods, and knives from their vehicles. One of them, A.3, allegedly attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod, aiming to cause fatal injuries while A.1 was present. The others proceeded to beat him with sticks, causing him to fall to the ground. Subsequently, the accused departed from the scene of the offence.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner (A.1) contends that, despite the alleged incident occurring on 13.05.2024, the FIR was only registered on 23.05.2024. This delay indicates an attempt to create multiple FIRs against the Petitioner. The crime has been fabricated against the Petitioner and others, as no such incident occurred as described by the Defacto Complainant. Crime No. 48 of 2024, registered at Rentachintala Police Station under sections 448, 427 read with 34 of the IPC and section 3 of the PDPP Act, involves the Petitioner and others. The Petitioner (A.1) sought anticipatory bail through Crl.P.No.3775 of 2024, and the Hon'ble High Court granted an interim protection order. Subsequently, the Petitioner was named as A.24 in Crime No.59 of 2024 at Karampudi Police Station. This new case was registered ten days after the alleged incident, on 23.05.2024, at around 9:30 PM, following a memo filed before the Court at about 8:00 PM. The investigation officer, acting on directives from superiors, exceeded their authority by implicating the Petitioner in this case, even though it appears related to the earlier Crime No.48 of 2024 at Rentachintala Police Station.

5. The learned Special Counsel representing the Respondent-State has submitted a counter, refuting all the allegations presented in the Petition. The contentions outlined in the Counter need not be reiterated, as they essentially mirror the report's content dated 23.05.2024. Additionally, the counter asserts that the Petitioner is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, involved in violent activities. The Petitioner is the primary accused in this case and has numerous ruthless associates. The Petitioner had previously filed anticipatory bail applications in Crl.P.Nos.3775, 3788, 3789, and 3790 of 2024, which this Court observed the crimes alleged against the Petitioner to be heinous and dismissed the applications. The Petitioner had not cooperated with the Police authorities at the time of investigation and had not answered any query posed by the Police authorities. The incident described is a heinous crime, as the Petitioner and his accomplices attem