The court emphasized the necessity of interim protection for the accused in election-related cases while ensuring victim protection and public safety during the electoral process.

ORDER :

(Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.)

Since the issue and the parties involved in all these Interim Applications in the above criminal petitions are one and the same, the same are being disposed of by this Common Order.

Arguments advanced at the Bar through video conferencing on 26.05.2024:

2. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri S.Rama Lakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the intervener (victim) in Crime No.59 of 2024 of Karempudi Police Station, Palnadu District and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, submitted the following arguments on 26.05.2024 :

- FIR No.53/2024 and 52/2024 are continuation of the alleged offences that are registered under FIR No.48/2024, wherein, this Court has granted interim bail as the offences therein are punishable below 7 years. Whereas, FIR No.59/2024, the name of the Petitioner was though not included in the FIR, originally the case is lodged against 10 persons and some others, the petitioner was implicated as A-24 on 23.05.2024, the date of occurrence is 14.05.2024 at 5.00P.M., wherein the police Inspector got injured, the case has been registered on 15.05.2024 at 12.30AM.

- Petitioner neither damaged any vehicle nor beat anybody as per the complaint averments. All the above three cases are foisted against the Petitioner after he got interim protection in FIR No.48. The record is manipulated as if the implication of the Petitioner was made on 23.05.2024, before securing the interim protection.

- The offences alleged in FIR No.52/2024 are punishable below 7 years and the Police are bound to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, [2014] 8 SCR 128, reiterated in Md. AsfakAlam v. State of Jharkhand & Another, 2023 INSC 660.

- When political ramifications are involved, even the delay of one hour is very crucial. FIR No.53/2024 and 52/2024 are lodged after ten days from the date of occurrence and the video that got circulated is of 1 minute duration, the Election Commission can view the entire video as to how rigging was committed and can understand the rigging activities by the opposition party members.

- Public Prosecutor is only entitled to notice and not for hearing at the stage of interim anticipatory bail, vide Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1

- When interim protection was given in FIR No.48, the crimes lodged against the Petitioner are all the offences are punishable below 7 years, whereas the offences alleged against Sri J.C.Asmit Reddy, a contesting candidate from opposite group and several others, included those offences that are punishable above 7 years, vide Section 307. In that scenario, the Public Prosecutor had not seriously objected to the grant of the bail and this Court considered granting the interim protection to the contesting candidates in the light of submissions that the counting is scheduled to be held on 04.06.2024 and the presence of the contesting candidates is necessary and important.

- On these submissions, learned counsel seeks this Court to continue the interim protection as granted before in the present crimes as well.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor Sri Y. Nagi Reddy would submit the following :

- The Petitioner’s whereabouts are not known. Petitioner has violated the conditions of interim protection dated 23.05.2024 and is not entitled for the grant of interim protection in view of the nature and gravity

- Presence of Petitioner at the counting station is likely to cause disturbance by him mobilizing his supporters.

- Chief Election Agent can take care of the counting, presence of the Petitioner is not required.

- Being representative of People, Petitioner resorted to the alleged offences, hence he is not entitled to interim protection.

- FIR No.59 occurred at the behest of the brother of the Petitioner, injured in this crime