ORDER : (Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.) Since the issue and the parties involved in all these Interim Applications in the above criminal petitions are one and the same, the same are being disposed of by this Common Order. Arguments advanced at the Bar through video conferencing on 26.05.2024: 2. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri S.Rama Lakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the intervener (victim) in Crime No.59 of 2024 of Karempudi Police Station, Palnadu District and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, submitted the following arguments on 26.05.2024 : - FIR No.53/2024 and 52/2024 are continuation of the alleged offences that are registered under FIR No.48/2024, wherein, this Court has granted interim bail as the offences therein are punishable below 7 years. Whereas, FIR No.59/2024, the name of the Petitioner was though not included in the FIR, originally the case is lodged against 10 persons and some others, the petitioner was implicated as A-24 on 23.05.2024, the date of occurrence is 14.05.2024 at 5.00P.M., wherein the police Inspector got injured, the case has been registered on 15.05.2024 at 12.30AM. - Petitioner neither damaged any vehicle nor beat anybody as per the complaint averments. All the above three cases are foisted against the Petitioner after he got interim protection in FIR No.48. The record is manipulated as if the implication of the Petitioner was made on 23.05.2024, before securing the interim protection. - The offences alleged in FIR No.52/2024 are punishable below 7 years and the Police are bound to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, [2014] 8 SCR 128, reiterated in Md. AsfakAlam v. State of Jharkhand & Another, 2023 INSC 660 . - When political ramifications are involved, even the delay of one hour is very crucial. FIR No.53/2024 and 52/2024 are lodged after ten days from the date of occurrence and the video that got circulated is of 1 minute duration, the Election Commission can view the entire video as to how rigging was committed and can understand the rigging activities by the opposition party members. FIR No.53/2024 and 52/2024 are lodged after ten days from the date of occurrence and the video that got circulated is of 1 minute duration, the Election Commission can view the entire video as to how rigging was committed and can understand the rigging activities by the opposition party members. - Public Prosecutor is only entitled to notice and not for hearing at the stage of interim anticipatory bail, vide Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 - When interim protection was given in FIR No.48, the crimes lodged against the Petitioner are all the offences are punishable below 7 years, whereas the offences alleged against Sri J.C.Asmit Reddy, a contesting candidate from opposite group and several others, included those offences that are punishable above 7 years, vide Section 307. In that scenario, the Public Prosecutor had not seriously objected to the grant of the bail and this Court considered granting the interim protection to the contesting candidates in the light of submissions that the counting is scheduled to be held on 04.06.2024 and the presence of the contesting candidates is necessary and important. - On these submissions, learned counsel seeks this Court to continue the interim protection as granted before in the present crimes as well. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor Sri Y. Nagi Reddy would submit the following : - The Petitioner’s whereabouts are not known. Petitioner has violated the conditions of interim protection dated 23.05.2024 and is not entitled for the grant of interim protection in view of the nature and gravity - Presence of Petitioner at the counting station is likely to cause disturbance by him mobilizing his supporters. - Chief Election Agent can take care of the counting, presence of the Petitioner is not required. - Being representative of People, Petitioner resorted to the alleged offences, hence he is not entitled to interim protection. - FIR No.59 occurred at the behest of the brother of the Petitioner, injured in this crime is a police officer. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner has replied as follows : - The present three cases surfaced to frustrate the purpose of the interim protection dated 23.05.2024 granted to the Petitioner. Petitioner could not comply the conditions due to threat of arrest in the light of lodgment of these three cases. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner has replied as follows : - The present three cases surfaced to frustrate the purpose of the interim protection dated 23.05.2024 granted to the Petitioner. Petitioner could not comply the conditions due to threat of arrest in the light of lodgment of these three cases. - Petitioner being an M.L.A. of the constituency in the last four tenures would not flee away from the course of justice and limited interim protection as given to the similarly placed contesting M.L.A. candidates, facing similar allegations for the offence under Section 307, ought to be given to the Petitioner till the date of counting. 6. Learned Counsel Sri N. Ashwani Kumar submitted the following : - Victim has a role in the criminal proceedings right from the stage of the FIR, vide Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, 2022 9 SCC 321 . - Criminal antecedents of the Petitioner should be considered as he was involved in the similar offences during 2019 A.P. State Assembly Elections. The matter was thereafter posted to 27.05.2024 for certain clarifications. Arguments advanced at the Bar through Hybrid Mode on 27.05.2024: 7. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri S.Rama Lakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel representing Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner as intervener (victim) in Crime Nos.52 and 53 of 2024 of Rentachintala Police Station, Palnadu District and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. 8. Learned Senior counsel Sri Posani Venkateswarlu submitted as follows : - After damaging the EVM Machine, Polling Officer closed the door of the polling booth and at the instance of the Petitioner, polling agent/victim was beaten. Another lady/victim in Cr.No.52 who tried to interfere was threatened. - VRO gave report as if it was done by unidentified persons, injured came forward to give the complaint after SIT came into existence. - Though previous cases cannot be taken into consideration, the video circulated about the Petitioner is in public domain but no case has been registered for 7 days and Petitioner fled away and Petitioner may not be available for investigation, Petitioner may repeat the same during the counting. - The petitioner is disqualified for getting interim protection in all parameters. - Though previous cases cannot be taken into consideration, the video circulated about the Petitioner is in public domain but no case has been registered for 7 days and Petitioner fled away and Petitioner may not be available for investigation, Petitioner may repeat the same during the counting. - The petitioner is disqualified for getting interim protection in all parameters. - Other cases wherein interim protection has been given to the contesting candidates, despite being alleged for the offences under Section 307 IPC cannot be compared with the present case. - Till the Petitioner is caught hold by the Police, other aggrieved persons may not be in a position to give complaint - There is no scope for false implication against the Petitioner. - If this Court is inclined to grant interim protection, stringent conditions may be imposed and he cannot be permitted to attend the counting station and his agent may appear on his behalf for the counting process. 9. To these submissions, learned Senior counsel Sri T.Niranjan Reddy replied as follows : - Election Commission should not have acted upon the representation of the opposition leader, simply basing on a one-minute video clipping. Entire record on the day of polling has to be looked into before concluding. - Petitioner made complaints against the police officials for their inaction against the rigging activities of the opposition party. - The injured in FIR No.59/2024 is threatening the people in the village not to act as the agents for the Petitioner’s party in the counting process. - On 23.05.2024, this Court heard the matter concerning interim anticipatory application at around 4:30 P.M. in Cr.No.48/2024 and has posed a query to the Public Prosecutor to verify as to whether any offences which are punishable above 7 years are pending against the Petitioner. The F.I.R. in Cr.No.53/2024 is registered ante-time. Certified copy would reveal that it has reached the Magistrate Court at 24.05.2024 at 3:00P.M. - Coming to the implication of the Petitioner as A-24 in Cr.No.59/2024, a memo has been filed before the concerned Magistrate Court on 23.05.2024 at 8:00P.M. - In Cr.No.59/2024, the medical certificate of A-21 and 22 would show that they were arrested on 16.05.2024 at 7:00 P.M., whereas as per the remand report, they were produced before the Court on 23.05.2024. This would indicate the clear manipulation on the part of the police and only to circumvent the interim protection which was given to the Petitioner on 23.05.2024, the present cases have been filed. - Other similarly placed persons, facing allegations for the offence under Section 307 IPC and to whom indulgence was shown by this Court, vide order 23.05.2024, have criminal antecedents in various number of cases, and when this Court has passed the interim protection not touching the merits of the cases, the same yardstick has to be applied to the Petitioner. - The Petitioner is ready and willing to abide stringent conditions as imposed by the Court. ANALYSIS BY THE COURT 10. It is not out of place to mention that, in the series of cases referred in the table infra, this Court has granted interim protection on 23.05.2024 for a limited period up to 06.06.2024 (which is the next sitting day of the Vacation Court after the counting). The rationale for granting the interim protection to the contesting candidates is to enable them to appoint their agents and monitor the crucial counting process, which is the finale in the elections. The order passed on 23.05.2024 clearly reflects that the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of various Petitioners requested for such an indulgence from this Court, and the learned Public Prosecutor, though sought time to file detailed counters, fairly conceded to such request in so far as the contesting candidates are concerned requesting the Court to impose necessary conditions till the counting process is over,de hors the political parties. It was also made clear in the order dated 23.05.2024 that no opinion is made touching the merits of the case. Sl. No. Case Number F.I.R. No Petitioner Section of Offences Levelled 1. Crl.P.No. 3775 of 2024 48/2024 Sri Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy 143, 147, 448, 427, 353, 452, 120-b r/w 149 IPC, section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 and Section 131, 135 of RP Act, 1951. 2. Crl.P.No. 3754 of 2024 94/2024 Sri Parimi Somasekhar Naidu 147, 148, 188, 427, 307, 332, 353 IPC, 3, 4 PDPPA r/w 149 IPC 3. Crl.P.No. 3748 of 2024 58/2024 Dr.Gopireddy Srinivasa Reddy 307, 427 r/w 34 IPC 4. Crl.P.No. 3726 of 2024 95/2024 Sri J.C.Ashmit Reddy and another 147, 148, 188, 324, 307, 427 r/w 149 IPC 5. 2. Crl.P.No. 3754 of 2024 94/2024 Sri Parimi Somasekhar Naidu 147, 148, 188, 427, 307, 332, 353 IPC, 3, 4 PDPPA r/w 149 IPC 3. Crl.P.No. 3748 of 2024 58/2024 Dr.Gopireddy Srinivasa Reddy 307, 427 r/w 34 IPC 4. Crl.P.No. 3726 of 2024 95/2024 Sri J.C.Ashmit Reddy and another 147, 148, 188, 324, 307, 427 r/w 149 IPC 5. Crl.P.No. 3776 of 2024 90/2024 Sri J.C.Ashmit Reddy and another 147, 148, 188, 353, 332 r/w 149 IPC, Section 125 of RP Act. 6. Crl.P.No. 3777 of 2024 92/2024 Sri J.C.Ashmit Reddy and others 147, 148, 506 IPC 125 RPA 1951, 427, 188 r/w 149 IPC. 7. Crl.P.No. 3727 of 2024 96/2024 Sri J.C.Ashmit Reddy and another 147, 148, 188, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC 8. Crl.P.No. 3782 of 2024 90/2024 Sri Kethireddy Pedda Reddy 147, 148, 188, 353, 332 r/w 149 IPC, 125 of RP Act, 307 IPC and Section 120 (b) IPC 9. Crl.P.No. 3783 of 2024 97/2024 Sri Kethireddy Pedda Reddy 147, 148, 188 IPC, Police firing 332, 427, 353 r/w 149 IPC, 307 IPC and Section 120 (b) IPC 10. Crl.P.No. 3784 of 2024 91/2024 Sri KethireddyPedda Reddy 147, 148,188 IPC, 125 RPA 1951, 324, 427, 506 r/w 149 IPC, 307 IPC and 120 (b) IPC 11. Crl.P.No. 3785 of 2024 94/2024 Sri Kethireddy Pedda Reddy 147, 148, 188, 427, 307, 332, 353 IPC, 3, 4 PDPPA r/w 149 IPC and 120 (b) IPC 12. Crl.P.No. 3753 of 2024 95/2024 Sri Parimi Somasekhar Naidu 147, 148, 188, 324, 307, 427 r/w 149 IPC 13. Crl.P.No. 3759 of 2024 96/2024 Sri Parimi Somasekhar Naidu 147, 148, 188, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC 14. Crl.P.No. 3733 of 2024 189 /2024 Sri Chintamaneni Prabhakar 224, 225, 353, 143 r/w 149 IPC 11. The details of the three Criminal Petitions in issue are tabulated below; SL. No. Case Number F.I.R.No. Petitioner Section of Offences Levelled 1. Crl.P.No. 3788 of 2024 53/2024 dated 23.05.2024 at 9:30 A.M. Sri Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy/A-1 147, 148 IPC, 131 (2) RPA 1951, 324, 307 r/w 149 of IPC. 2. Crl.P.No. 3789 of 2024 52/2024 23.05.2024 at 9:00 A.M. Sri Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy/A-1 506 IPC, 131 (2) RPA 1951, 509 of IPC. 3. Crl.P.No. 3790 of 2024 59/2024 15.05.2024 At 12:30 A.M. Sri Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy/A-24 143, 147, 307, 332, 435, 427 r/w 149 of IPC 12. 2. Crl.P.No. 3789 of 2024 52/2024 23.05.2024 at 9:00 A.M. Sri Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy/A-1 506 IPC, 131 (2) RPA 1951, 509 of IPC. 3. Crl.P.No. 3790 of 2024 59/2024 15.05.2024 At 12:30 A.M. Sri Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy/A-24 143, 147, 307, 332, 435, 427 r/w 149 of IPC 12. Petitioner herein also obtained interim protection till 06.06.2024 in Crl.P. No.3775/2024 as against F.I.R.No.48/2024, vide order dated 23.05.2024. It is necessary to mention that though the allegations made in the complaint in F.I.R.No.48/2024, on the face of it, appear to be serious and shocking, the law in place provides that they are punishable with imprisonment below 7 years. In such scenarios, this Court is bound to follow the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, [2014] 8 SCR 128, which is also reiterated in Md. AsfakAlam v. State of Jharkhand & Another, 2023 INSC 660 , providing detailed guidelines on the procedure to be followed in cases involving punishment less than 7 years imprisonment. Further, the offences involved in Crl.P.No.3789 of 2024 which is in relation to Cr.No.52/2024, are all offences punishable with imprisonment less than 7 years. Therefore, on this count, it is mandatory to comply with the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar. 13. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the batch of the Petitions referred supra, Petitioner was also granted interim protection till 06.06.2024 in Cr.No.48/2024, vide orders dated 23.05.2024, on the very same day to circumvent the protection, with ante-time, the Petitioner was implicated in three other cases. 14. It is Petitioner’s case that out of the three cases, Cr.Nos.,52/2024 and 53/2024 are continuing offences to the offence under Cr. No.48/2024. It is submission of learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.Niranjan Reddy that there cannot be multiple F.I.Rs. for continuing offence, vide T.T.Anthony v. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 . As rightly put by learned Senior Counsel Sri Posani Venkateswarlu that the issue whether the F.I.Rs. are of continuing offence or not has to be determined at a later stage and not in this interlocutory stage. Moreover, this is not the stage to decide whether the F.I.R. in Cr.No.53/2024 is ante-timed or not. 15. This Court posed a query to the Learned Public Prosecutor as to the date on which the Petitioner was implicated in Cr.No.59/2024. are of continuing offence or not has to be determined at a later stage and not in this interlocutory stage. Moreover, this is not the stage to decide whether the F.I.R. in Cr.No.53/2024 is ante-timed or not. 15. This Court posed a query to the Learned Public Prosecutor as to the date on which the Petitioner was implicated in Cr.No.59/2024. To this, on 26.05.2024, the learned Prosecutor after verifying with the concerned authorities replied that they have filed a memo before the Magistrate Court implicating the Petitioner as A-24 on 22.05.2024. This was seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel Sri T.Niranjan Reddy and this Court adjourned the matter to 27.05.2024 for clarification. Today it was brought to the notice of the Court that a memo has been filed at 8:00 P.M. on 23.05.2024 before the Magistrate Court implicating the Petitioner as A-24, along with the remand report of A-21 and A-22. Whereas, medical report filed along with the remand report would show that they were arrested on 16.05.2024 at 7:00 P.M, which is a serious concern and prima facie violative of the mandate of Cr.P.C., and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West. Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416 . This being an interim application, the learned Public Prosecutor may clarify on this aspect with all the necessary details at the final hearing. 16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal that the accused is not obliged to make out a special case for grant of anticipatory bail, and such an interpretation would fetter the court’s discretion. Stating so, he would seek the Court to show the same indulgence as was shown to the other contestants, who have a criminal antecedent history of double digit numbers. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the discussion supra, since the similarly placed Petitioners de hors the Political Parties are facing allegations of offences punishable with imprisonment more than 7 years, i.e., Section 307 I.P.C., were given interim protection, it is apposite to apply the same yardstick to the Petitioner, who is also a contesting candidate. As mentioned supra, the sole purpose to show the indulgence was to enable an effective opportunity to the contesting candidates to monitor the counting procedure. As mentioned supra, the sole purpose to show the indulgence was to enable an effective opportunity to the contesting candidates to monitor the counting procedure. It is no doubt true that as Representatives of People, the contesting/sitting candidates should be very cautious and responsible of their actions. 18. Victim protection and participation is one of the most paramount considerations in the criminal law. In these matters, learned Counsel Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar and learned Senior Counsel Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, have ventilated their concerns and have filed implead petitions. Though the Code of Criminal Procedure does not expressly provide any provision on this aspect, it is relevant to refer to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of Bombay High Court in Vinay Poddar v. The State of Maharashtra, (2009) 1 AIR Bom R 233, wherein, Hon’ble Sri Justice A.S.Oka, (when his Lordship was then a Judge of the Bombay High Court) on the similar issue of hearing the complainant at the stage of anticipatory bail applications, observed as follows : “15. When an application for anticipatory bail is considered, the police may not place all factual details before the Court as the investigation in most of such cases is at a preliminary stage. Therefore, some role can be played by the complainant by pointing out factual aspects. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the first informant or the complainant cannot be heard in an application for anticipatory bail. When the complainant appears before the Court in the course of hearing of an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is bound to hear him. But the said right cannot be allowed to be exercised in a manner which will delay the disposal of an application for anticipatory bail. The delay in disposal of such application may adversely affect the investigation. Therefore, the right which can be spelt out in favour of the first informant or the complainant is of making oral submissions for pointing out the factual aspects of the case during the course of hearing of an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Session. The said right is to be exercised by the complainant either by himself or through his Counsel. This is not to say that the Sessions Court hearing the application for anticipatory bail is under an obligation to issue notice to the first informant or the complainant. The said right is to be exercised by the complainant either by himself or through his Counsel. This is not to say that the Sessions Court hearing the application for anticipatory bail is under an obligation to issue notice to the first informant or the complainant. There is no such requirement of issuing notice to the first informant or the complainant at the hearing of the application for anticipatory bail. However, if the complainant or the first informant appears before the Court, he cannot be denied a right of making oral submissions either in person or through his Counsel. It must be noted here that the legal position on this aspect in the case of an application for regular bail may not be the same. ” (emphasis supplied) 19. This Court prima facie agreeing with the view enunciated above, have permitted the learned Counsels to appear on behalf of the victims to provide their oral submissions. Due regard shall be given to the concerns placed by these counsels in imposing the conditions. 20. Since it is brought to the notice of the Court that the whereabouts of the Petitioner are not known, learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner is apprehending threat of arrest and life in the light of the three cases that were lodged against him and has now assured on behalf of the Petitioner to stay at the Headquarters of District and obey the conditions imposed. This Court would impose necessary stringent conditions which will ensure to meet the situation. 21. In the light of the above mentioned premises, this Court is inclined to give interim protection not to take any coercive action against the petitioner including arrest the Petitioner in connection with the above crimes till the next date of hearing i.e. 06.06.2024,with the following conditions : 1. The Chief Electoral Officer for the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to order the concerned police authorities to have complete surveillance on movements of the petitioner/Sri Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy(hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) during this interregnum period of protection. 2. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activity or repeat commission of alleged offences lodged against him. 3. The petitioner shall not create any law-and-order problem in the district. 4. 2. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activity or repeat commission of alleged offences lodged against him. 3. The petitioner shall not create any law-and-order problem in the district. 4. The petitioner shall take the responsibility of his followers and see that no untoward incident is attempted/committed causing hindrance to public tranquillity and victim protection. 5. The petitioner shall not make any comment in print or electronic media about his role in the present cases; and shall not interact with any of the witnesses/victims so as to induce, influence or threaten them. 6. The petitioner shall stay at the headquarters of the Parliamentary Constituency in this interregnum period. In case, if the counting station is situated elsewhere, he shall be permitted to visit such station on the day of counting. 7. The Petitioner shall mark his presence at the Office of Superintendent of Police, Palnadu, every-day, in between 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. 8. The Petitioner shall furnish the details of his place of stay at Narasaraopet and his active mobile number, which is in working condition, to the Superintendent of Police, Palnadu. 9. The Petitioner shall deposit his passport before the concerned Magistrate Court/Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gurajala, and he shall not leave the country without the permission of the Court. 10. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu, is directed to take every care of the victim by providing adequate and necessary police protection/patrolling to the victim. 22. It goes without saying that in case of violation of any of the conditions supra, the Prosecution is at liberty to take necessary steps according to law. 23. This Court makes it clear that by this Order, no expression is made touching the merits of the case. 24. It is relevant to mention that observations made by the Court during the course of hearing bail applications, be it regular or anticipatory, are not conclusions on the prosecutions launched. It is apt to refer to the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mallappa & Others v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104 which reads thus : “1. The wheels of justice may grind slow, but they grind fine” (emphasis supplied) 25. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Applications are ordered. 26. Meanwhile, the prosecution is at liberty to file a detailed counter in the matter for hearing the main criminal petitions. List the matters on 06.06.2024. The wheels of justice may grind slow, but they grind fine” (emphasis supplied) 25. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Applications are ordered. 26. Meanwhile, the prosecution is at liberty to file a detailed counter in the matter for hearing the main criminal petitions. List the matters on 06.06.2024. Note: At the time of pronouncement of the order, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner Sri T.Niranjan Reddy would submit that condition No.7 may be modified to the extent of the date of counting i.e., on 04.06.2024 the Petitioner may be permitted to appear before the Returning Officer of the particular Constituency. Considering the submission, Condition No.7 is modified to the extent of the appearance of the Petitioner on the date of counting, i.e., on 04.06.2024 only before the Returning Officer of the particular Constituency. For remaining other days, he shall report before the Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District.