IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
Yenugu Sasidhar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 579, 588 of 2025
Decided On : 19-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of illegal quarrying and fir (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defense arguments for bail based on lack of evidence (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's assessment of political bias and evidence (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. legal rationale for granting bail (Para 18) |
| 5. final decisions and conditions for bail (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2025 has been preferred under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity "the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act") seeking to enlarge the appellant-accused No. 11 on bail by challenging the order dated 13-08-2025 in Criminal M.P. No. 1361 of 2025 in Crime No. 24 of 2025 of Podalakuru Police Station, on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore(for short "the learned Special Judge") whereby and whereunder the bail sought by the appellant-accused No. 11 was dismissed.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 588 of 2025 has been preferred under Section 14 A (2) of "the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act" seeking to enlarge the appellant- accused No. 12 on bail by challenging the order dated 25-08-2025 in Criminal M.P.No. 1402 of 2025 in Crime No. 24 of 2025 of Podalakuru Police Station, on the file of the Court of "the learned Special Judge" whereby and whereunder the bail sought by the appellant-accused No. 12 was dismissed.
3. These two criminal appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment as they arise out of one crime although the appellants are different.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. Respondent No.2, by letter dated 07.12.2023, lodged report against the persons involved in illegal quarrying in an extent of Ac.31.71 cents in survey Nos.697, 699, 751/2, 759/1, 759/2, 924 & 925 of Tatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The case of prosecution, as detailed, has its genesis from a report given by the de-facto complainant, M. Balaji Nayak, District Mines and Geology officer, Nellore, vide Letter No.1872/M/2015 dated 14.02.2025. An FIR was registered as a case in crime No.24 of 2025 dated 16.02.2025 under Sections 447, 427, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity "the I.P.C.") Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short "PDPP Act"), and Sections 21 (1) and 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "MMDR Act"), against Accused Nos.1 to 3. It was mentioned that Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, former Minister, and the present MLA of Telugu Desam Party from Sarvepalli Legislative Constituency started conducting a Dharna at the said quarry on 16.12.2023 with a protest against illegal quarrying operation. Dharna went on till early hours of 19.12.2023. Following evacuation of the Dharna, a visit was made to the quarry site and found that no quarry operations had been carried out since 15.12.2023, based on a representation filed by Y. Vidhyakiran as per the directions of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The quarry was non-operational subsequently.
5. The District Vigilance Squad (DVS) team and technical personnel of the office concerned kept a tab on the site. Later, it was found that some of the residents, purportedly supported by the then ruling party members, had started illegal quarrying activities forcibly. On a follow-up visit, and with inquiry from Village Revenue Officers (VROs) and residents, it was determined that illegal quarrying of Quartz and Feldspar minerals was done and being exported to China through Chennai Port. Notices were sent under Rule 26(1) and (ii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity "the Rules, 1966") to Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy.
6. Aggrieved by the lodging of the FIR, Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Petition No.1950/2025 for quashment of proceedings. A learned single judge of this Court dir
Bail granted due to insufficient evidence linking appellants to alleged offenses and lack of caste-based intent, reflecting court's consideration of political biases.
It is the duty vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence to secure conviction. But all the materials secured by the I.O. require to be....
The main legal point established is the need for discretion in considering bail applications under the Atrocities Act and the requirement to segregate the acts of each accused before concluding their....
Point of law : discretion for grant of bail must be exercised cautiously while considering the bail petitions of the nature being dealt with.
The jurisdiction for anticipatory bail in caste atrocity cases is reserved for special courts under the Scheduled Castes Act, reaffirming the necessity for prima facie evidence for jurisdictional app....
Anticipatory bail petitions under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not maintainable unless prima facie evidence exists, as per Sections 18 and 18....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.