The court ruled that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases involving allegations under the SC/ST Act, as per Section 14A, which bars such petitions.

ORDER :

(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.)

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.411 of 2024 of Pulivendula UG Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 351(3), 353(1)(c) , 111(2)(b) and 196 read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

2. Heard arguments of Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Case of the prosecution is that there were obscene postings in social media as against Sri Pawan Kalyan and women members of his family. The de facto complainant is a member of Jana Sena Party. He was aggrieved by it. According to him, one Mr. Varra Ravindra Reddy belonging to YSR Congress Party has been getting such defamatory and obscene material circulated in the social media. It is in that regard the de facto complainant went and questioned Sri Varra Ravindra Reddy, upon which, the said person allegedly abused him by caste name and also told him that to delete such postings it would cost Rs.2,00,000/- and demanded him to pay the said amount and intimidated him that in the event of his failure to pay he would kill and bury him. He also threatened him not to complain the same to others. Upon the written information of the de facto complainant, F.I.R. was registered on 12.11.2024.

4. The further case of the prosecution is that during investigation accused No.1 was arrested and in his confession he disclosed various facts among which the name of the present petitioner surfaced.

5. Apprehending his arrest by virtue of the alleged confession of A.1, the present petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.

6. He is stated to be a personal secretary to the present Member of Parliament of Kadapa Parliamentary Constituency.

7. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the first information report the allegations are against Sri Varra Ravindra Reddy and the name of this petitioner is not even printed there. For oblique reasons the petitioner is sought to be implicated. The further submissions of the learned counsel are that the offences alleged against Sri Varra Ravindra Reddy include caste atrocity and this petitioner is innocent of all such acts.

8. Opposing the pre-arrest bail, Sri K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that by virtue of Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act, 1989’), the High Court cannot entertain an anticipatory bail petition on its original concurrent jurisdiction and in which case a petition for pre-arrest bail cannot be maintained before this Court.

9. In the above-referred circumstances, the first question that has to be considered is about the jurisdiction of this Court in considering an anticipatory bail in a crime where the offences alleged are not only under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) but also under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

10. Responding to the objection raised by the prosecution, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in a case there is an accusation of an accused having committed an offence under the Act, 1989, anticipatory bail cannot be maintained by virtue of Section 18 of the Act, 1989. However, when such an application for anticipatory bail is moved, the Court where it is filed has to verify and see whether the facts on record prima facie disclose any such accusations amounting to an offence under the Act, 1989 as otherwise the Court is entitled to grant anticipatory bail. F