THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13589 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in connection with FIR.No.387 of 2025 before Narsampet Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 296(b) read with 3(5) of BNS, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Thereafter, on instructions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the section of law was altered to Section 109, 296(b) read with 3(5) of BNS, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on October 12, 2025, Rayapuram Durga Prasad reported that on October 9, 2025, he was abused and attacked by Giragani Manidev, Cheekati Shivamani, Shalum, and Racharla Ranjith, along with two others, at Narsampet. The incident began when the accused abused him at a general store, and later, they called him and abused him over the phone. The next day, they attacked him at the Vegetable Market, using casteist slurs, beating him with a stone, and attempting to stab him with a knife, causing head injuries.

3. Heard Sri A. Shiva Sainath, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner, Accused No. 3, contends false implication in a case arising from a personal quarrel between A1 and the complainant. He asserts that the role of petitioner is limited to making phone calls, without any physical assault or abuse. He lamented that the allegations leveled against the petitioner does not attract SC/ST Act provisions, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. While advocating that the petitioner who is a businessman with no criminal record, is willing to cooperate with investigation, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, and submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature to which his custodial interrogation is necessary. As such, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and taking into consideration the fact that the investigation in the case is not yet completed, this Court is of the firm view that petitioner is not entitled for the relief of grant of anticipatory bail. There are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J

Date: 31.10.2025

PT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13589 of 2025 Date: 31.10.2025 PT