Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail To Co-Accused In SC/ST Act Case | Finds No Allegation Of Active Involvement And Notes Victim Now Married To Prime Accused
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa granted regular bail to the appellant, Accused No.5, in a criminal matter arising from Crime No.106 of 2025 registered at Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District. The order under challenge was passed by the IV Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act Cases, Guntur, which rejected the bail plea of the appellant on grounds of gravity and seriousness of allegations.
The criminal appeal arose from the rejection of regular bail in Crl.M.P.No.880 of 2025 dated 05.06.2025 by the IV Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act Cases, Guntur. The bail application was filed in relation to Crime No.106 of 2025, registered at Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District. The appellant in the case is Accused No.5, identified as the maternal uncle of Accused No.1.
According to the prosecution, the primary accused, Accused No.1, had allegedly established a sexual relationship with the de-facto complainant, a Scheduled Caste woman, under the false pretense of marriage. It was claimed that he also accepted a large amount of money and gold as dowry. However, despite a formal engagement ceremony, Accused No.1 allegedly refused to marry the complainant and insulted her modesty when she and her supporters demanded that he fulfil his promise.
Following these allegations, a complaint was lodged with the Lalapet Police, which led to the registration of Crime No.106 of 2025. The charges reportedly involve cheating and violations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appellant herein, Accused No.5, is the maternal uncle of Accused No.1. The complaint does not mention any specific role or act committed by the appellant in the course of the events leading to the complaint. Nonetheless, he was arrested and placed in judicial custody from 19.05.2025.
Counsel for the appellant, Sri K.L.N. Swamy, submitted that Accused No.5 had no involvement in the incident. He further stated that the present case was initiated solely based on allegations against Accused No.1 and that no independent allegation or act of criminality was attributed to the appellant.
It was additionally contended by the appellant's counsel that subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, Accused No.1 married the de-facto complainant and they are presently living together as a family. This fact was brought to the Court’s notice to demonstrate reconciliation between the parties and diminish the need for further incarceration of Accused No.5.
In support of the bail request, it was pointed out that the appellant had remained in judicial custody for approximately one month and that the investigation was likely completed by the time of the hearing. There was no indication of any other criminal case pending against him, and it was submitted that he posed no threat to the investigation or prosecution.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, representing the State, acknowledged that there were no other cases pending against the appellant. She left it to the discretion of the Court to pass appropriate orders in the matter.
The Court addressed the central issue in the appeal in the form of a legal query: “Whether the Impugned Order dismissing the Regular Bail application of the appellant by the Trial Court is sustainable on facts and law?”
Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Court recorded: "The reason for dismissal is that there is no major change of circumstances in between the dismissal of previous bail application as per the CD. There is a gravity and seriousness in the matter."
The Court noted that these reasons, though reflecting the trial court’s stance, did not sufficiently justify the continued detention of Accused No.5.
Regarding the role of the appellant, the Court stated: "It is alleged against A1 that having agreed for the marriage after performing the engagement ceremony for the marriage, A1 did not choose to marry the victim and A1 along with his family members refused and avoided the marriage with the victim girl."
On the basis of submissions made by counsel, the Court observed: "Learned counsel would further submit that subsequent to lodging of the present case, A1 got married with the de-facto complainant and they are living together as a family."
Evaluating the specific allegations against Accused No.5, the Court recorded: "Nothing is attributed against him that he participated in the act of alleged cheating against the victim." The Court also noted the duration of custody: "The appellant has been in judicial custody for the last one (1) month."
In light of these factors, the Court found that there was insufficient basis to continue the appellant’s judicial custody and concluded that the circumstances warranted grant of regular bail.
The Court issued directions for the grant of regular bail to the appellant.
"The Appellant shall execute personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court."
"Appellant is directed not to hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses."
The Court also warned of consequences in case of non-compliance: "It is made clear that the Appellant shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail."
In conclusion of the appeal, the Court stated: "In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Sri K. L. N. Swamy, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XXX v. State and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010282092025
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
[Read/Download order]
