Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC can be denied if prima facie evidence suggests involvement in serious crimes, despite the accused's absence at the crime scene.

JUDGMENT:

The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Accused No.18 seeking to set aside the Order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024 in Crime No.183 of 2024 on the file of the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and to grant anticipatory bail to him.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, there were land disputes between the family of the Appellant/Accused No.18 and Katta Ramireddy, Sridhar Reddy and Padmamma. In that view, both the families are using SC Madiga community people as pawns to vie against each other. That being so, on 22.10.2024 at 2.45 a.m., all the Accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and petrol bottles, went to the cattle shed of the Defacto Complainant, knocked the door with sticks, knives and rods and when the inmates could not come out, the Accused had broke the cement window, threw the petrol bottles into the room and set fire. Accused No.1 hacked the M.Hari Prasad with a knife on his head and Accused No.2 beat him with a rod as a result said Hari Prasad collapsed. All the Accused also attacked the De facto Complainant with sticks and caused injuries. Hari Prasad sustained head injury and died instantaneously. Based on the complaint given by the De facto Complainant, a case in Crime No.183 of 2024 on the file of Chillakur Police Station, has been registered against all the Accused.

3. Heard Ms.Y.L.Sivakalpana Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.18 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.18 would submit that the Appellant herein and Accused No.1 are brothers and the Appellant is a Chartered Accountant. Learned counsel would further submit that, in view of the property disputes between the family of the Appellant and one Narapureddy Sridhar Reddy, the Appellant and his family members are falsely implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel would submit that the Appellant was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, as such, the offences alleged do not attract against him. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused Nos.22 and 24 were granted bail in the present crime vide Order dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2024 by the learned trial Judge and Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 19, 23 and 26 were also granted bail vide Order dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024. Learned counsel would further submit that the Appellant herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1330 of 2024 seeking anticipatory bail before the trial Court and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 10.01.2025. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations leveled against the Appellant are false and frivolous. It is submitted that, except the allegation of abetment, there is no allegation against the Appellant. Learned counsel would further submit that, since the Appellant was at Hyderabad at the relevant time, the offence under SCST Act is not maintainable against him. Since no prima facie case is made out against the for the offence under SCST Act, the Appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that, the Appellant/Accused No.18 is a Chartered Accountant at Hyderabad and with a view to tarnish his reputation and to cause humiliation, he was dragged into the present crime. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala and another., 2024 (6) Supreme 321 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, [AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312]

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Appellant/Accused No.18 is the main culprit in the present crime. It is further submitted that, at the instigation of the Appellant, the remaining Accused have committed the alleged offences. Learned A