JUDGMENT : Y. Lakshmanaraocriminal, J. Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2025 has been preferred under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[the SCs & STs (POA) Act] seeking to enlarge the Appellant/Accused No.9 on bail by challenging the order dated 29.04.2025 in Criminal M.P.No1575 of 2025 in Crime No.24 of 2025 of Podalakuru Police Station, on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act–cum– V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore[the learned Special Judge] whereby and whereunder the bail sought by the Appellant/Accused No.9 was dismissed. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Respondent No.2, by letter dated 07.12.2023, lodged report against the persons involved in illegal quarrying in an extent of Ac.31.71 cents in survey Nos.697, 699, 751/2, 759/1, 759/2, 924 & 925 of Tatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The case of prosecution, as detailed, has its genesis from a report given by the de-facto complainant, M. Balaji Nayak, District Mines and Geology officer, Nellore, vide Letter No.1872/M/2015 dated 14.02.2025. An FIR was registered as a case in crime No.24 of 2025 dated 16.02.2025 under Sections 447 , 427, 379 read with Section 3 4 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’), Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984(for short ‘PDPP Act’), and Sections 21 (1) and 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’), against Accused Nos.1 to 3.It was mentioned that Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, former Minister, and the present MLA of Telugu Desam Party from Sarvepalli Legislative Constituency started conducting a Dharna at the said quarry on 16.12.2023 with a protest against illegal quarrying operation. Dharna went on till early hours of 19.12.2023. Following evacuation of the Dharna, a visit was made to the quarry site and found that no quarry operations had been carried out since 15.12.2023, based on a representation filed by Y.Vidhyakiranas per the directions of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The quarry was non-operational subsequently. 3. The District Vigilance Squad (DVS) team and technical personnel of the office concerned kept a tab on the site. The quarry was non-operational subsequently. 3. The District Vigilance Squad (DVS) team and technical personnel of the office concerned kept a tab on the site. Later, it was found that some of the residents, purportedly supported by the then ruling party members, had started illegal quarrying activities forcibly.On a follow-up visit, and with inquiry from Village Revenue Officers (VROs) and residents, it was determined that illegal quarrying of Quartz and Feldspar minerals was done and being exported to China through Chennai Port.Notices were sent under Rule 26(1) and (ii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 1966’) to Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy. 4. Aggrieved by the lodging of the FIR, Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Petition No.1950/2025 for quashment of proceedings. A learned single judge of this Court directed the respondent authorities to follow Section 3 5 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) (equivalent to Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.’), as per the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , and also restrained the police from taking coercive action against Accused No.1 pending further orders. 5. On 28.02.2025, the Investigating Officer submitted an Alteration Memo in crime No.24 of 2025 before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate mentioning that during investigation, recording of statements of eleven witnesses was video-graphed, the site of offence was visited, Mahazar was drawn and signed by mediators, and photo and video evidence were gathered. On 27.02.2025, the statement of LW-11, Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, was taken, in which he incriminated further offences under Sections 120-B, 109, 290, and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Accordingly, Accused Nos.4 to 10 were included in the list of accused. Thereafter, on 31.03.2025, another Alteration Memo was submitted by the Investigating Officer to the Jurisdictional Magistrate adding the provisions viz., Sections 3 (1) (r), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(iii) of ‘the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act’based on statements of LW-13 to LW-15. 6. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2025 was added as accused No. 11 basing on the statement of L.W.22-Poreddy Nagendra Reddy on the ground that the alleged quartz material was dumped in the fields of the appellant situated in survey Nos. 135 and 137 of Thanderu Village. The appellant-accused No. 11 was arrested on 19-07-2025. 6. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2025 was added as accused No. 11 basing on the statement of L.W.22-Poreddy Nagendra Reddy on the ground that the alleged quartz material was dumped in the fields of the appellant situated in survey Nos. 135 and 137 of Thanderu Village. The appellant-accused No. 11 was arrested on 19-07-2025. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 588 of 2025 was added as accused No. 12 basing on the confessional statement of accused No. 11. The appellant-accused No. 12 was arrested on 22-07-2025. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED Nos.9: 7. Sri V.Lakshmi Harish, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Appellant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the Appellant. The Appellant undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the appellants. 8. It is further submitted that the Appellant has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Appellant has co-operated with the investigation so far and assure continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the Appellant would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the appeals. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 9. Mr. Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Appellant on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the Appellant. The prosecution further apprehends that the Appellant, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Appellant absconding and evading the due process of law. The prosecution further apprehends that the Appellant, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Appellant absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Appellant do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the Appeal. 10. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 11. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 12. Upon careful consideration of the record and submissions of both the learned Counsel, this Court finds that the impugned order of the learned Special Judge is vitiated by legal infirmities and a manifest misapplication of judicial discretion. The order fails to appreciate the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence that liberty is the rule and detention the exception, particularly when the investigation is complete or substantially progressed. The Appellant was not named in the original FIR, and their subsequent implication, unsupported by independent corroboration, raises serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case and suggests mala fide intent. The belated invocation of special penal provisions under ‘the SCs & STs (POA) Act’, without contemporaneous material, further undermines the legitimacy of the prosecution and reflects procedural impropriety. 13. The Appellant’s continued incarceration is devoid of demonstrable necessity and fails to satisfy the twin tests of necessity and proportionality. The prosecution’s justification for arrest namely, the extraction of exclusive information has lost relevance after exhaustive custodial and judicial interrogation. All material witnesses have been examined, and no credible apprehension has been raised regarding tampering or obstruction of justice. The appellant’s deep societal roots, absence of prior misconduct, and express undertaking to cooperate with the investigation negate any reasonable apprehension of flight risk or non-cooperation. 14. The apprehension of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that appellant may tamper with the evidence or witnesses is not a ground to refuse bail inasmuch as they are vague in nature. The appellant’s deep societal roots, absence of prior misconduct, and express undertaking to cooperate with the investigation negate any reasonable apprehension of flight risk or non-cooperation. 14. The apprehension of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that appellant may tamper with the evidence or witnesses is not a ground to refuse bail inasmuch as they are vague in nature. There is no allegation that before his arrest, he had threatened any witness or intermeddled with the investigation. The appellant contend that a political vendetta was taken against him at the behest of the sitting M.L.A. of the constituency concerned. By judgment dated 18.08.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.399 of 2025 and dated 19.09.2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos.579 & 588 of 2025, this Court enlarged accused Nos.4, 11 & 12 respectively on bail with certain stringent conditions. Accused No.4 is alleged to be the main kingpin in this case. He was granted bail. Accused No. 6 was also enlarged on bail. The Appellant is accused No.9. His role has come into light only based on the confession of other accused. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2025 SCC Online SC 1157] , at Para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under: “27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: (iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co- accused.” 15. Accused No.9 was arrested on 22.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 77 days. CONCLUSION: 16. Accused No.9 was arrested on 22.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 77 days. CONCLUSION: 16. Considering the gravity and the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, stage of the investigation and the period of detention undergone by the Appellant/Accused No.9, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Appellant on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The Appellant/Accused No.9 shall be enlarged on bail on he executing each a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, if he is not required in any other crime; (ii) The Appellant/Accused No.9 shall co-operate with the investigating officer and shall furnish necessary information and record which is legally permissible under law; (iii) The Appellant/Accused No.9 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana without express permission from the Investigating Officer; (iv) The Appellant/Accused No.9 shall handover his passport to the investigating officer till the conclusion of trial; (v) TheAppellant/Accused No.9 shall not commit any offence like the offence of which he is accused or suspected of commission; (vi) The Appellant/Accused No.9 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted of the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and (vii) The Appellant/Accused No.9 shall make his presence before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 AM and 5.00 PM till the filing of Charge sheet. 17. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.