The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that if no prima facie offence under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out from the allegations made in the FIR, the bar created by sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989 shall not apply and such an anticipatory bail application need to be considered in terms of section 438 CrPC.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner is the leader of TDP for Macherla Assembly constituency. The complainant alleged that she and her family members were travelling in an auto rickshaw and there was a convoy of five vehicles going on the road and that convoy belonged to the preset petitioner. Then, a white colour safari was driven negligently by the driver and dashed the auto-rickshaw and consequently, the de facto complainant and her family members sustained various injuries and the auto-rickshaw in which they were travelling turned turtle. Thereafter, the people got down from the convoy enquired with the people who sustained injuries and asked them to which village they belonged. After that, they disclosed their village name and caste and the Petitioner and people accompanying him abused her by their caste name. Furthermore, the FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 364, 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the present petition under section 438 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioners/accused to grant anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that it is a politically motivated case and the photograph of the vehicle which is annexed clearly shows that there was no point of contact for this vehicle to indicate that it could have collided with any other vehicle. It was furthermore contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that since it is a case of caste atrocity, the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the act of registering a petition is solely administrative in nature. The applicability of laws such as sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989, which require judicial standards and application of mind, necessitates the registration and scheduling of hearings for such petitions.
It was furthermore observed from the bare perusal of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 that the bar contained therein applies only when the accusation indicates commission of an offence under the Act, 1989. Therefore, it is always incumbent upon the court to find out from the record whether the acts alleged against the petitioner do prima facie indicate the involvement of that accused for an offence under the Act, 1989. However, if no prima facie offence is made out from the allegations made in the FIR, the bar created by sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989 shall not apply and such an anticipatory bail application needs to be considered in terms of section 438 CrPC.
The court noted that the victim was rescued by the Petitioner only and the allegations made up by the complainant in the FIR totally seem to be artificial. Furthermore, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that no custodial interrogation is necessary and the court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal Petition.
Case Title: Julakanti Brahma Reddy @ Brahma Nanda Reddy V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr V R K Krupa Sagar
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.: 10005/2023
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
