Anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of routine; it requires exceptional circumstances, particularly when serious allegations are involved.

ORDER :

(T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.)

1. The petitioner/A 1 has filed the Criminal Petition, as per Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail concerning Crime No.48 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 143, 147, 448, 427, 353, 452, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 ("PDPP Act") and Section 131 and 135 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("R.P. Act").

3. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 13.05.2024, around 12:30 PM, at Paluvaigate Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Palnadu District, unidentified individuals entered Polling Booth Station No. 202 and vandalized an EVM (Electronic Voting Machine) and VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) machine before fleeing the scene. Following this incident, on 22.05.2024, a Memo was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rentachintala Police Station, to the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gurazala. The Memo alleged that on 13.05.2024, A.1, A.2 and A.3 unlawfully entered Polling Station No. 202. They damaged the VVPAT machine, considered election equipment and government property. Before damaging the equipment, the accused engaged in a physical altercation with their adversaries at the polling station.

4. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner/A.1, argues that the Station House Officer, Rentachintala Police Station, filed a Memo nine days after the alleged incident, in which the Petitioner and two others were named as accused under several sections of the law. The learned counsel contends that opposition leaders orchestrated this delay to tarnish the Petitioner's reputation and implicate him in an electoral offence. It is alleged that the Investigation Officer was influenced to implicate the Petitioner unfairly. Furthermore, the learned counsel asserts that the Petitioner has filed a complaint against the Police Official involved, claiming that the allegations against him were concocted through deliberations and discussions. The filing of the Memo before the Court was characterized as belated and part of a design to keep the Petitioner away from the counting process and hinder his ability to appoint election agents. The learned counsel further contends that since the offences in question carry punishments below seven years, the procedures outlined in Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C., which deal with arrest procedures, should have been strictly followed. Learned counsel emphasizes that the actions of the opposition party and the police indicate a clear intent to arrest the Petitioner, which would result in irreparable harm and injury to him.

5. 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 13.05.2024. Additionally, the Counter asserts that the Petitioner holds the position of a Member of the Legislative Assembly and is currently contesting as an MLA candidate for the Macherla Assembly Constituency. It alleges that the Petitioner has been involved in violent activities and is the primary accused in the present case. Additionally, the Petitioner is claimed to command a group of ruthless associates. If he remains free to move publicly under these circumstances, it could jeopardize the lives of innocent people and create widespread panic in the villages. Moreover, the Counter asserts that the Petitioner is involved in 12 cases, indicating a pattern of alleged criminal behaviour.

6. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Rama Lakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned counsel, for the Petitioner/A.1, and Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Special counsel, representing the Respondent- State (vide G.O.Rt.No.577, dt.12.06