Amravati: In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Dr. Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, dismissed 18 anticipatory bail petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitions pertained to Crime No. 137 of 2023, registered at the Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District. The court ruled that the petitions were not maintainable due to the jurisdictional restrictions imposed by Sections 18, 18A, and 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The High Court emphasized that applications for anticipatory bail in cases involving the SC/ST Act must be filed before Special or Exclusive Special Courts, as mandated by Section 14A of the Act. Justice Krupa Sagar noted that the High Court’s jurisdiction in such cases is limited to appellate powers, thereby excluding concurrent original jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
“The concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain anticipatory bail petitions is expressly barred under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act. Applications for bail, including anticipatory bail, must be made before the appropriate Special Court, and only an appeal from such orders can be entertained by this Court,” the judgment read.
The FIR in Crime No. 137 of 2023 arose from an incident on February 20, 2023, at the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) office in Gannavaram. Members of the YSR Congress Party were alleged to have attacked the TDP office with sticks, stones, and petrol bombs, causing significant arson and property destruction. The complainant, belonging to the Madiga caste, a Scheduled Caste, also alleged caste-based abuses.
Initially, the FIR included provisions under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, and 506 IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. During the investigation, additional provisions, including Sections 436, 450, and 452 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, were added.
The petitioners contended that the allegations were politically motivated, and the inclusion of SC/ST Act provisions was unwarranted. They argued that the jurisdictional bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act does not apply if a prima facie case under the Act is not established. They relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601] to assert that the High Court retains power in cases lacking essential ingredients of the Act.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments, stating that it cannot delve into the merits of allegations at the anticipatory bail stage. Justice Krupa Sagar clarified that procedural irregularities or political motivations should be addressed during the trial or through appropriate forums.
The court also reiterated that Section 18A of the SC/ST Act eliminates the need for a preliminary inquiry or prior approval for arrest, emphasizing the investigative agency’s prerogative to include additional penal provisions based on evidence.
The High Court directed that any future anticipatory bail applications under the SC/ST Act must adhere to the procedural framework outlined in Section 14A. It reaffirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts and dismissed the petitions without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to approach the appropriate forum.
