JUDGMENT : B V L N Chakravarthi, J. Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the appellants/A-1, A-5 and A-7 and Sri P.Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared for the complainant, though notice served U/s.15-A of SC/ST(PoA) Act. 2. The appeal is filed U/s.14-A (2) of SC/ST(PoA) Act 1989, challenging the order dated 02.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2062/2025 in Cr.No.167/2025 of V.Satram Police Station. 3. The appellants filed an application U/s.483 of BNSS, 2023 before the Special Court to enlarge them on bail. The learned Special Judge dismissed the application, holding that the allegations made against the petitioners therein are serious in nature, and prima facie show the involvement of the petitioners in the offence. 4. Challenging the order of the learned Special Court, the present appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants were implicated in the case due to political rivalry, they are innocent. Further, the FIR do not disclose any material against the petitioners. He would further that the appellants were arrested on 07.11.2025, and since then, they are in judicial custody. Material part of the investigation has been completed. Therefore, the detention of the appellants in judicial custody is no longer required. 6. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He would contend that the FIR, statement of the victim and other witnesses examined during investigation would disclose that the present petitioners were very much present at the scene of offence and their role in the offence. They assisted the other accused (Puttayya) to stab the husband of the complainant with a knife on thigh and neck of the injured. The other accused in the case including the accused, who stabbed the injured are at large. Investigation is under progress. If the appellants are enlarged on bail at this stage, they would interfere in the investigation by threatening the witnesses, who are yet to be examined and tamper the evidence. 7. In the light of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as under: “ Whether the order dated 02.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.2026/2025 on the file of learned Special Court warrants any interference ”? 8. POINT : The FIR in the case was registered on 03.11.2025 vide Cr.No.167/2025 of V.Satram Police Station, for the offence U/secs.333, 109(1) r/w. section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(PoA) Act, 1989. 8. POINT : The FIR in the case was registered on 03.11.2025 vide Cr.No.167/2025 of V.Satram Police Station, for the offence U/secs.333, 109(1) r/w. section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(PoA) Act, 1989. The contents of the FIR would disclose that on 02.11.2025 husband of the complainant came to home at about 08.30 p.m., after attending certain political meetings. One B.Adeyya called the husband of the complainant. Later, at 12.00 a.m. gas leaking in the house. One person namely Ramesh came to the house, grabbed the hands of the complainant. Husband of the complainant woke up and raised alarm. One Puttayya stabbed the complainant’s husband on left thigh and slit the throat with knife and ran away. The other accused are standing outside the house. They also ran away. Thereafter, the husband of complainant was shifted to hospital for medical treatment. 9. Perusal of FIR, statement of the victim, and other material on record prima facie would disclose the presence of the appellants and other accused at the house of complainant and one Puttayya attacked the husband of the complainant with a knife, causing injuries on thigh and he also slit the throat, with an intention to kill him. 10. Admittedly, Puttayya and others are still at large. The material on record prima facie would show the presence of the appellants/accused also at the scene of offence, abetting Puttayya to cause serious injuries to the injured in the case, including slit on the throat of injured. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, manner in which it was committed, presence of the present appellants at the scene of offence at that time, this Court do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Special Court at this stage of investigation in the case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to allow the appeal, and consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered. 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants are at liberty to renew application for bail before the learned Special Court, after some time on change of circumstances. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.