The Andhra Pradesh High Court has underscored the imperative of adhering to statutory investigation timelines under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside the bail rejection orders of the trial court, holding that continued judicial custody of the appellants beyond the prescribed 60-day investigation period, without completion of investigation, was unsustainable in law. The judgment reinforces that bail cannot be denied merely on speculative grounds of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, absent concrete material.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from Crime No. 24 of 2026 registered at Vontimitta Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, SC/ST Act), and Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, BNS). The appellants, Pula Kiran Kumar (A-2), Katta Mallikarjuna (A-1), Katta Balakrishna (A-6), and Palukuru Suneel (A-7), were arrested on 25.04.2026 and have been in judicial custody since then. The defacto-complainant in the case is Eeri Venkatesu, an auto driver from Tirupati District.
Key Facts
- FIR Registration: The First Information Report (Crime No. 24/2026) was registered on 19.04.2026.
- Arrest of Appellants: The appellants were arrested on 25.04.2026 and lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa.
- Investigation Status: As of the date of the judgment (29.06.2026), the investigation had not been completed, despite the statutory period of 60 days from the date of FIR registration having elapsed.
- Bail Applications: The appellants filed bail applications (Crl.M.P.No. 963/2026 and Crl.M.P.No. 958/2026) before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST Act, Kadapa, seeking enlargement on bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, BNSS).
- Trial Court Order: The trial court dismissed the bail applications on 09.06.2026, observing that the appellants may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and that their release could create a law and order problem.
Procedural History
- 19.04.2026: FIR registered under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 109 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS.
- 25.04.2026: Appellants arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
- Post-25.04.2026: Appellants lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa.
- Bail Applications: Filed before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST Act, Kadapa.
- 09.06.2026: Trial court dismisses bail applications (Crl.M.P.No. 963/2026 and Crl.M.P.No. 958/2026).
- Post-09.06.2026: Notice served to the defacto-complainant under Section 15(A) of the SC/ST Act, but no objections filed.
- 29.06.2026: Present criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 376/2026 & 388/2026) filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act read with Section 528 of BNSS.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants
- The appellants have been in judicial custody for 65 days as of the date of the judgment (29.06.2026).
- The investigation has not been completed within the statutory period of 60 days from the date of FIR registration, and the delay is not attributable to the appellants.
- There is no material to suggest that the appellants would tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.
- The trial court’s order dismissing the bail applications is erroneous and unsustainable in law.
For the Respondent/State
- The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications, though no specific grounds were recorded in the judgment.
- The investigation is nearing completion, except for the arrest of A-5 and the receipt of his caste certificate.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought enlargement on bail, arguing that their continued detention beyond the statutory investigation period was unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the SC/ST Act and BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether continued judicial custody of the appellants beyond the 60-day investigation period prescribed under the SC/ST Act, without completion of investigation, was sustainable in law, particularly when the trial court’s order was based on speculative grounds rather than concrete material.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
- Statutory Timeline: Relied on the 60-day investigation period prescribed under the SC/ST Act, arguing that the appellants’ continued detention beyond this period was illegal.
- Lack of Material: Contended that the trial court’s order was based on speculation rather than evidence showing that the appellants would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- Judicial Custody: Emphasized that the appellants had been in custody for 65 days without any progress in the investigation attributable to them.
- Precedent: Impliedly relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly when statutory timelines are violated.
For the Respondent/State
- Investigation Status: Argued that the investigation was nearing completion, except for minor procedural steps (arrest of A-5 and receipt of caste certificate).
- Public Interest: Impliedly contended that releasing the appellants could prejudice the investigation or create law and order issues, though no specific evidence was cited.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court conducted a rigorous analysis of the legal principles governing bail under the SC/ST Act and the BNSS, focusing on the following key aspects:
-
Statutory Investigation Period: The Court noted that the SC/ST Act prescribes a 60-day investigation period from the date of FIR registration. The appellants had been in judicial custody for 65 days, and the investigation had not been completed within the statutory timeline. The Court held that prolonged detention without completion of investigation was unjustified, particularly when the delay was not attributable to the appellants.
"Undisputedly, the appellants are in judicial custody from 25.04.2026. FIR was registered on 19.04.2026. Investigation has to be completed in 60 days from the date of registration of FIR as per provisions of the Special Act. The impugned orders do not disclose what is the material available against the appellants/A-2, A-1, A-6 & A-7 to come to a conclusion that they will tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses, if they are released on bail."
-
Speculative Grounds for Bail Rejection: The Court criticized the trial court’s order for being vague and speculative. The trial court had merely observed that the appellants may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, without citing any concrete material to support this conclusion. The High Court emphasized that bail cannot be denied on mere apprehensions or hypothetical grounds.
"The trial Court simply observed that they may tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses and create law and order problem."
-
Judicial Custody and Delay: The Court highlighted that the appellants had been in custody for 65 days, and the investigation had not been completed within the statutory period. The delay was not due to any conduct of the appellants, and thus, their continued detention was unjust and illegal.
-
Principles of Bail: The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly in cases where statutory timelines are violated. The Court held that the trial court’s order was unsustainable either in law or on facts.
The Verdict
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed both criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 376/2026 & 388/2026) and set aside the orders dated 09.06.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 963/2026 and Crl.M.P.No. 958/2026 by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST Act, Kadapa. The Court directed that the appellants (A-2, A-1, A-6, and A-7) be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
- Personal Bond: Each appellant shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST Act, Kadapa.
- Reporting Requirement: The appellants shall appear before the Station House Officer, Vontimitta Police Station, on the 4th Saturday of every month for three months, or until the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
- Travel Restriction: The appellants shall not leave the country without the permission of the Special Court.
- Non-Intimidation: The appellants shall not intimidate, annoy, or contact the defacto-complainant or his family members in any manner.
- Cooperation with Investigation: The appellants shall join the investigation as and when requested by the Investigation Officer, after issuance of a proper notice.
- Cancellation of Bail: If the appellants violate any of the above conditions, the prosecution may apply for cancellation of bail, and the Special Court shall dispose of such application in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Timelines Are Non-Negotiable
- Investigation Period: The judgment reinforces that the 60-day investigation period under the SC/ST Act is mandatory. Courts cannot extend judicial custody beyond this period without completion of investigation, unless the delay is attributable to the accused.
- Bail as a Right: Where investigation is not completed within the statutory period, bail becomes a right, and continued detention is illegal. Practitioners should vigorously argue for bail in such cases, citing this judgment.
Speculative Grounds Cannot Justify Bail Rejection
- Concrete Material Required: The Court has made it clear that bail cannot be denied on speculative grounds (e.g., apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses) without concrete material to support such claims.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Trial courts must scrutinize bail applications rigorously and avoid vague observations. Practitioners should challenge bail rejections that rely on hypothetical or speculative grounds.
Conditions for Bail Must Be Proportionate
- Reporting Requirements: The Court imposed monthly reporting requirements for a limited period, ensuring that the appellants remain available for investigation without unduly restricting their liberty.
- Non-Intimidation Clause: The condition prohibiting contact with the complainant or his family is standard, but practitioners should ensure that such conditions are reasonable and not overly restrictive.
- Cancellation Clause: The judgment provides a clear mechanism for cancellation of bail if conditions are violated, offering protection to the complainant while balancing the rights of the accused.",
