ORDER: V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.78 seeking regular bail in Crime No.390 of 2020 of Thullur Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324, 109 read with 149 I.P.C. 2. Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt Rolla Madhavi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State have made their antimated arguments. 3. Perused the record. 4. The former Member of Parliament Sri Nandigam Suresh Babu having been arraigned as Accused No.78 prays for regular bail. A detailed counter signed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Thullur Sub-Division, Guntur district on behalf of the respondent-State is filed. 5. The crime incident allegedly took place on 27.12.2020 and the FIR was registered on 28.12.2020. A reading of the written information by one of the victims indicates the name of this petitioner at not less than six times and further gave the names of 36 persons who participated in the crime incident. The written information shows that more than 100 persons participated in the crime incident. 6. After registering the FIR, investigation commenced, and scene of offence was observed and six witnesses were examined and some incriminating material was recovered. All that was done by a police officer in the rank of Inspector of Police. Subsequently, the investigation was entrusted to a Sub-Divisional Police Officer on or about 29.12.2020. During his investigation, many more witnesses were examined and re-examined and from the investigative inputs, State found the participation of 40 more accused and they were arraigned as Accused Nos.37 to 77. At least six injured were found and from the medical record, the investigation officer noticed grievous injuries for some. Therefore Section 326 of I.P.C. was added and the same was intimated to the Court competent by way of a Memo. Thereafter, there was a lull in the investigation. Investigation was still open and was not concluded and no charge sheet was lodged. Therefore Section 326 of I.P.C. was added and the same was intimated to the Court competent by way of a Memo. Thereafter, there was a lull in the investigation. Investigation was still open and was not concluded and no charge sheet was lodged. Thereafter investigation was taken up by the next investigation officer and on 06.09.2024, some of the witnesses were further examined and names of some more persons and their role in the commission of crime were noticed and state found a conspiracy that led for commission of this crime. Therefore, it had filed a Memo before the competent Court adding Section 120-B I.P.C. It also added Sri Nandigama Suresh Babu/the present petitioner as Accused No.78. 7. Unrelated to the present crime is Crime No.390 of 2020 of Thullur Police Station, but related to the present petitioner. There is another case in Crime No.650 of 2021 of Manga l agiri Rura l Police Station. The present petitioner is A80 in the said crime. On 04.09.2024, this petitioner was arrested in Crime No.650 of 2021 and he was remanded to Judicial Custody. In the said remand report, the State mentioned about the present case concerning Crime No.390 of 2020 as pending against this petitioner. While he was in judicial custody in Crime No.650 of 2021, the State moved an application on 17.09.2024 before the learned Magistrate seeking for PT Warrant against this petitioner, so as to take him to judicial custody in the present crime No.390 of 2020. That application was ordered by the learned Magistrate several days thereafter and on 03.10.2024. Accordingly, the present petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 07.10.2024 and it was on that day, he was remanded to judicial custody in the present Crime No.390 of 2020. 8. On behalf of this petitioner, a regular bail petition was moved before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2024. After considering the entire material on record and the forceful submissions raised on both sides and after recording several reasons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to grant bail and dismissed the petition on 14.10.2024. Thereafter, on 16.10.2024, the present petitioner moved this Court seeking regular bail. After considering the entire material on record and the forceful submissions raised on both sides and after recording several reasons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to grant bail and dismissed the petition on 14.10.2024. Thereafter, on 16.10.2024, the present petitioner moved this Court seeking regular bail. One is required to notice that after the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody in the present crime, the State moved an application for police custody and the learned Magistrate granted it from 19.10.2024, 11:30 A.M. to 21.10.2024 till 11:30 A.M. The State availed the order, obtained police custody of the petitioner and in due compliance with the order, it produced the petitioner before the Court competent and he was taken into judicial custody. 9. Record would further show that 31 accused were granted regular bail on 04.03.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2021 by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Guntur. 10. Coming to the facts of the crime, the written information upon which FIR was registered disclosed that a woman by name Mendem Mariyamma, aged 50 years suffered serious injuries on head and died. It was her son who lodged the written information. The allegations of the State are that, at the relevant time, the present petitioner was Member of Parliament and he belonged to the then ruling political party/YSRCP. The party then in power and governing the state took a decision for establishing three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Various farmers who had given their lands for the sole capital at Amaravathi were agitated at that and they were seeking for withdrawal of the decision of the then Government. The present petitioner with a view to secure political gain for the party and get the applause of the party head, established a Society in the name of Bahujana Parirakshana Samithi, which was established for the purpose of conducting agitations in support of three capitals decision. The petitioner had the following of SC-Madiga community. He sought support from SC-Mala community in Velagapudi Village. SC-Mala community which supported him in other aspects refused to support him in this issue and they rejected him and did not lend support to the Society. That caused grudge for the petitioner and his groups. They intended to take revenge and teach a lesson to SC-Mala community. He sought support from SC-Mala community in Velagapudi Village. SC-Mala community which supported him in other aspects refused to support him in this issue and they rejected him and did not lend support to the Society. That caused grudge for the petitioner and his groups. They intended to take revenge and teach a lesson to SC-Mala community. The petitioner having conspired with his followers belonging to SC-Madiga community provoked the caste people and he provided financial assistance and supplied liquor to them and abetted and drove them to attack Malapalli and people of Mala community. This conspiracy was hatched on 24.12.2020. In pursuance of the said conspiracy it was on 27.12.2020 about 100 people on the abetment of this petitioner came to Malapalli with knives, axes, Iron rods and stones and attacked various persons in Malapalli. Several people suffered injuries. People who committed this violence were shouting the name of this petitioner and hailing him. Mendem Mariyamma suffered serious injuries on her head because of pelting of stones. In the First Information Report itself, it is mentioned that police were present when this incident occurred and they remained mute spectators and did not do anything to stop the havoc. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that the name of the petitioner was not there in the FIR and he was falsely implicated in this case and therefore the petitioner is the victim of the false implication. This was done in view of political rivalry as the present Telugu Desam Party which came into power intends to take vengeance against the opposition political party and the petitioner being Member of Parliament in the earlier political establishment, the present false implication is made only after the advent of Telugu Desam Party to power. 12. A few facts clearly available from record are required to be noticed and the contention referred above has to be then tested. The written information of the defacto complainant repeatedly mentioned the name of Nandigam Suresh, the Member of Parliament. One who reads this written information would not commit a mistake from noticing his name. In the opening part of the written information itself, it is alleged that the Member of Parliament Sri Nandigam Suresh abetted and on his abetment and on his support, more than 100 people of Madiga community wielding dangerous weapons have attacked the Malapalli and killed the woman. In the opening part of the written information itself, it is alleged that the Member of Parliament Sri Nandigam Suresh abetted and on his abetment and on his support, more than 100 people of Madiga community wielding dangerous weapons have attacked the Malapalli and killed the woman. In detail at various places, it narrated the name of the petitioner and as to how and why he unleashed this mass violence between the communities. This written information shows participation of 100 and more people and the master mind behind those assaults and then mentions that the informant was able to notice and recognize 36 persons and gave their names in Serial Nos.1 to 36. The written information disclosed the case of Murder which is a cognizable offence. The police officer in terms of section 154 CrPC registered the First Information Report. He was expected to mention, in the relevant columns, the names of accused that were disclosed by the written information. The printed First Information Report in its format contains the names of those 36 individuals who were given serial numbers by the written informant but the name of this petitioner was not shown as one of the accused in the printed First Information Report. When the written information speaks about this petitioner his name is not there in the printed FIR. What prompted the registering police officer to omit the name of this petitioner as one of the accused is a matter of concern. Thirty one (31) participants in this crime sought bail in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2021 and that was granted by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge on 04.03.2021. A copy of that order is placed on record. At paragraph No.15, the learned Additional Sessions Judge stated “The said Sri Nandigam Suresh, Member of Parliament, Bapatla Constituency, has not been figured in the First Information Report and the entire CD does not disclose as to the investigation conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police and also the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Thullur Sub Division, Thulluru as to the role of said Sri Nandigam Suresh, Member of Parliament, Bapatla Constituency. It seems, the Sub Inspector of Police registered the First Information Report as Station House Officer and he failed to follow the basic procedure in respect of registration of First Information Report against alleged offenders involved in the incident.” Thus, way back in the year 2021 itself, the learned Additional Sessions Judge pointed out the serious lapse in the crime investigation on part of the police. However, nothing happened thereafter for more than three years in rectifying the lapse. In the above referred fact situation, the contention raised on behalf of this petitioner that his name does not find place in FIR and he is a victim of false implication is to be considered. The frailty of the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is apparent since missing of his name in the printed FIR is only because of reasons that are not lawful as otherwise any Station House Officer who had read the written information would have without any hesitation arraigned the petitioner as one of the accused. It is here that one has to see the argument and the contention about the political rivalry between two important political parties in this State and the people belonging to those political parties. If it is to be taken that the name of this petitioner emerged only on the advent of the new political party governing the State then on the same token, one would think that earlier the name disappeared only because the petitioner belonged to the ruling political party when the FIR was registered. Therefore, this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is no ground to grant any bail. 13. In the petition, it is urged at paragraph No.16, learned senior counsel forcefully submits that the petitioner has clean record of life and having fixed place of residence and therefore, the question of absconding, tampering the evidence does not arise and investigation was completed. Therefore, he may be released on bail. 14. The above contention has to be tested from the following facts that are made available on record. According to the prosecution from the year 2010 till the year 2024, this petitioner was alleged to be an accused in several cases. Therefore, he may be released on bail. 14. The above contention has to be tested from the following facts that are made available on record. According to the prosecution from the year 2010 till the year 2024, this petitioner was alleged to be an accused in several cases. While he was a supporter of YSRCP party, he was involved in following crimes: I. Crime No.93/2010 of Thullur PS, U/s. 509, 506, 323, 420, 407 r/w. 34 of IPC (A3-referred as civil in nautre); II. Crime No.47/2012 of Thullur PS, U/s. 498-A, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC (A1-compromised before Lok Adalat); III. Crime No.96/2016 of Thullur PS, U/s. 151 CrPC; IV. Crime No.131/2017 of Thullur PS, U/s. 151 CrPC; V. Crime No.105/2018 of Thullur PS, U/s. 151 CrPC; VI. Crime No.178/2018 of Thullur PS, U/s. 151 CrPC. Subsequently, he was elected as Member of Parliament from Bapatla Parlimament Constituency and during the time, when his party was ruling, he was involved in following crimes: VII. Crime No.122/2019 of Repalle PS, U/s. 188 IPC; VIII. Crime No.34/2020 of Amaravathi PS, U/s. 323, 354, 506, 509 r/w. 34 of IPC; (under investigation); IX. Crime No.390/2020 of Thullur PS, U/s. 147, 148, 302, 324, 326, 120-B, 109 r/w. 149 of IPC (A-78 – Crime under present petition); X. Crime No.650/2021 of Mangalagiri Rural PS, U/s. 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 380, 427, 450, 452, 506, 120-B, 109 r/w. 149 of IPC (under investigation); XI. Crime No.154/2024 of Thullur PS, U/s. 341, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC (under investigation). 15. The above list would answer the claim of the petitioner about the clean record of life that is claimed in the bail petition. Coming to the aspect of tampering with the evidence, the arguments advanced before this Court demonstrated that the investigation was tampered with. The bail order rendered by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2021 made the acts of manipulation crystal clear and that is mentioned in various parts of the said bail order. The substance of those observations are that the then Sub Divisional Police Officer who investigated the crime forwarded the case diary to the Court for consideration of bail application. The substance of those observations are that the then Sub Divisional Police Officer who investigated the crime forwarded the case diary to the Court for consideration of bail application. In that the learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed that there are printed written instructions from the Sub Divisional Police Officer addressed to the Public Prosecutor stating that the bail must be opposed and those petitioners if released on bail, they would cause grave threats to the de facto complainant and witnesses and they would tamper with the evidence. It was further mentioned that 43 more accused were still to be arrested and a lot more investigation was pending. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also recorded that the same Sub Divisional Police Officer in a hand written manuscript endorsement dated 03.03.2021 addressed to the Public Prosecutor mentioned that investigation is completed and we are not opposing to grant bail to the petitioners who moved the bail. At paragraph No.11, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that the investigation is not fair enough and it was giving contradictory material. At paragraph No.15, the learned Additional Sessions Judge stated that the Sub Divisional Police Officer who took up investigation since 29.12.2020 did not take any steps for holding test identification parade over the accused and never put legal efforts to get the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and did not take any steps to consider those accused who were coming forward to give voluntary confessions and forward them to the Magistrate and have their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also mentioned that the scene of offence was not even photographed as no photos were made available for consideration and there were no efforts to secure availability of any CCTV footage in and around the scene of offence. At paragraph No.16, it was mentioned that during arguments on behalf of the bail petitioners, it was stated the government assured to delete the names of those accused who were not yet arrested by them. Then the judge lamented about the plight of the investigation and the duty of the police and the role of the Court and stated that investigating officer must separate the fact from fantasy and observations from opinion and at paragraph No.22 recorded that in his opinion, the investigation that was done so far by them was only peripheral and random and nothing substantial. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to those 31 accused after noting that they were mere coolies and as against them, the investigation could be considered as completed and therefore granted regular bail. Be it noted, the arguments of political vendetta is considered in the light of the above observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which were recorded three years ago and thereafter for three years nothing transpired to rectify the situation till recently. One would notice that the pliable police have been acting in tune with suggestions received from elsewhere. When the record discloses these disappointing aspects, could it be said that there was no tampering of evidence. The very fact that statements of some of the witnesses were recorded on more than one occasion is by itself a symptom of various ills affecting the investigation agency. According to the State, this petitioner for political reasons raised the conflict between two groups of scheduled castes which eventually led to the death of a woman. 16. One who is on bail if indulges in polluting the witnesses and the stream of investigation his bail could be cancelled. If an accused is shown to have polluted the investigation, it is difficult to consider his prayer for bail. The facts on record disclosed that there was no fair investigation and the cause of it is attributed to the petitioner by the State. The nature of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the character, behaviour that are peculiar to the accused and the genuineness of the case are some of the factors that shall be considered by a court as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Deepak Yadav V. State of UP 2022 LawSuit(SC) 669. 17. In such circumstances, it is difficult to grant bail when the investigation is at this crucial stage. 18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.