Anticipatory bail should only be granted under exceptional circumstances; the court must consider the nature of accusations, the applicant's history, and potential risks to public safety and the investigation.

ORDER:

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.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 counsel representing the petitioner/A.1 argues that although the alleged incident took place on 13.05.2024, the FIR was not filed until 23.05.2024, following the filing of a Lunch Motion before this Court; the Petitioner contends, in Criminal Petition No.3775 of 2024, that the offences registered under Crime No.48 of 2024 at Rentachintala Police Station are punishable with a term below seven years. It is stated that two reports, FIR No. 52 of 2024, registered at 9:00 AM and FIR No. 53 of 2024, registered at 9:30 AM, seem to relate to the same incident as described in FIR No.48 of 2024, but no such incident occurred as detailed in these reports. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the police officials, aiming to implicate the defacto complainant in multiple cases, filed a Memo on 23.05.2024, at 4:00 PM, naming him as A.24 in Crime No. 59 of 2024 at Karampudi Police Station. The offence under Sections 143, 147, 307, 332, 435, and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC are contested by the Petitioner, who claims he was not involved in the offence. It is clear from the F.I.R. that the individuals who attacked the defacto complainant are identified, and the Petitioner had no direct or indirect involvement. Furthermore, the learned counsel argues that the Station House Officer has been actively pursuing the Petitioner's arrest to prevent him from selecting agents for the counting process and briefing them on counting procedures.

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 23.05.2024. Additionally, the counter asserts that the Petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a current can