Order:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners/A6 and A8, seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.59 of 2023 of Yerpedu Police Staiton, Tirupathi district.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 147, 148, 341, 307, 332, 353, 354, 120B read with 149 IPC, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, in connection with closure of the road, passing from Chindepalli to Srikalahasthi-Renigunta, in pursuance to the orders of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Tirupati, the petitioners herein and other accused supported Chindepalli Villagers and A1 started Hunger Strike on 27.03.2023 by sitting herself inside Siddeswaraswamy Temple situated in the outskirts of Chindepalli Village without taking permission and intimation to the police and the temple management. In connection with the said issue and when the health condition of A1 became worse, Renigunta Rural Inspector who

2 Crl.P.No.3951 of 2023 2023:APHC:23961 belongs to SC (Mala) by community, Yerpedu Circle Inspector, Srikalahasthi I Town Circle Inspector and some other police officials tried to lift A1 from Hunger strike, A1 instigated the petitioners and other accused who with a premeditated mind and intension, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, attacked on the police officials and their men. They attempted to commit murder of the complainant and caused bleeding and dumb injuries. Further, they outraged the modesty of women constable, women officers and threatened them with dire consequences and that all the accused obstructed the legitimate duties of the police officials and abused them in filthy language by touching the caste of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioners herein. He further submits that the earlier bail application filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed as withdrawn. He submits that where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the Court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and in support of his contention, he relied on a decision reported in Kalyan

3 Crl.P.No.3951 of 2023 2023:APHC:23961 Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav1. He further submits that subsequent to dismissal of earlier bail application filed by the petitioners herein as withdrawn, A2 and A3, against whom specific overt acts have been attributed, were arrested and released on bail, hence the present bail application is maintainable in view of said changed circumstances.

5. On the other hand, Sri Sura Venkata Sai Nath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, has strenuously opposed the bail application by relying on the judgments reported in Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra2 and G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu3.

6. Heard. Perused the material on record.

7. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners herein. The earlier bail application filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed as withdrawn. With regard to change of circumstances, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that A2 and A3, against whom specific overt acts have been attributed, were arrested and released on bail and no specific act has been attributed as against the petitioners herein.

1 (2004) 7 SCC 528

2 (2004) 9 SCC 31

3 2021 SCC Online SC 176

4 Crl.P.No.3951 of 2023 2023:APHC:23961

8. In Vasant Vithu Jadhav’s case (supra), relied on by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus.

“It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled