Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday dismissed two criminal petitions filed by YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) leaders including former minister Jogi Ramesh, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with two separate incidents of political violence. The court’s ruling pertains to the 2021 vandalism at the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) central office in Mangalagiri and the attack on the residence of then-opposition leader N. Chandrababu Naidu.

The court, presided over by Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, refused to grant bail to the petitioners and also refused their request for interim protection to seek remedies from the Supreme Court. The court noted : “there is a right for every individual for a peaceful and undisturbed life and that shall be respected, however much the political parties and their supporters may resent the political opinions or activities of other political parties and their members.”

The cases pertain to the 2021 attacks on the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) central office and the residence of N. Chandrababu Naidu, who was the leader of the opposition at the time. A total of 14 YSRCP leaders have been booked in various cases related to these incidents. Among the leaders whose bail petitions were dismissed are Devineni Avinash, Talasila Raghuram, Nandigam Suresh, Lella Appireddy and others.

The first petition relates to an attack on Naidu's residence in Undavalli Village, Krishna District in September 2021. According to police records, a group led by Jogi Ramesh arrived at Naidu’s residence armed with flag sticks, making threats and engaging in violent behaviour. The group was allegedly angered by Naidu’s political stance. During the altercation, one individual sustained serious injuries after being struck by a flag stick, leading to charges under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection), and 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection) read with Section 149 (rioting) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following further investigation, which included video evidence capturing the incident, additional charges under Sections 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon) and 307 (attempt to murder) IPC were incorporated.

The second petition pertained to the vandalism at the TDP central office in Mangalagiri in October of the same year. A mob, allegedly led by YSRCP leaders, stormed the premises and caused significant damage, following objectionable remarks made by TDP spokesperson Kommareddy Pattabhi Ram against then-Chief Minister Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. Multiple FIRs were filed against the accused, who claimed that the charges were politically motivated following the recent shift in power in the state.

The court strongly condemned the violence and made several critical observations regarding the nature of the crimes and the implications of granting anticipatory bail in politically charged situations. It noted that the accused had specifically targeted Naidu, despite his lack of involvement in any direct provocations. “In the name of holding a dharna [protest], they reached a place and targeted a person who happened to be the leader of the opposite party. In a political democracy, events of such nature have always to be deprecated,” the court stated.

The court further distinguished between normal crimes and politically motivated violence, highlighting that anticipatory bail in such cases would set a dangerous precedent: “A normal crime of one against the other is clearly to be distinguished from a case where scores of people gathered to commit violations of law. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude creating panic among several people is not appropriate.”

The court also addressed the argument that the investigation was politically driven, rejecting claims of a vendetta. The court pointed out that the investigation only gained momentum after a change in government: “May be that the assailants being belonged to a particular political party, the investigation agency could not take courage to conclude its investigation,” it remarked. It also stated that “Mere tardiness in investigation by itself cannot be a ground to think that it is a manipulated prosecution.”

Considering the evidence presented, the court concluded that anticipatory bail was not appropriate in either case: “Considering the acts alleged against the petitioners and the investigative needs, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to grant the prayers of anticipatory bail.”

Following the dismissal of their petitions, the YSRCP leaders sought interim protection for two to three weeks to allow them time to appeal to the Supreme Court. They cited various Supreme Court judgments, including ‘State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh’ (2023) and ‘Gautam P. Navlakha v. State of Maharashtra’. However, the court rejected this request, referencing ‘State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal’ (2023), which holds that interim protection cannot be granted after the refusal of anticipatory bail.

 

Case Numbers : CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4568 and 5501 of 2024 & CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4548, 4537, 4583, 4628, 4710, 4796, 4808, 5294, 5297, 5303, 5329, 5349, 5351 and 5354 of 2024