Punyamanthula Tirumala Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.362 of 2019 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the

¶21

2

¶22

Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’).

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶24

Originally a case in Cr.No.362/2019 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City was registered for the alleged offence under Section 338 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Later in the course of investigation it was detected that Petitioner with an intention to kill RamaRao, by showing it as road accident, as Anand has got financial disputes with his uncle. The accused paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and purchased one used car, Mahindra Scorpio, and with that vehicle an attempt was made to do away the life of RamaRao. The learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka issued permission to continue further investigation pursuant to change of Section of law from Section 338 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to Section 307 of ‘the I.P.C.’ A chargesheet was filed against all, including Petitioner/Accused No.1 showing him as absconding. Later, the Investigating Officer obtained PT warrant against Accused No.1 and it was executed. The Petitioner was arrested on 21.06.2023 and produced before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. Ever since, for a period of 901 days the Petitioner has been in the judicial custody as an under trial prisoner. Even after elapse of more than 2½ years there is no progress in the trial. It is submitted that not even schedule was issued for examination of the witnesses of the prosecution.

¶25

3

¶26

Mrs. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the instant crime the Petitioner also indulged in commission of a crime under the provisions of the NDPS Act vide FIR No.527/2020.

¶27

Be that as it may, mere pendency of adverse criminal antecedents is

¶28

not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail, for the reason that the accused is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh¹

¶29

Petitioner is permanent resident of P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam City

¶30

and he has got fixed abode. If he is enlarged on bail with certain stringent conditions, he may not evade from the process of law and ends of justice would be sub-served.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail with certain stringent conditions.

¶32

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:

¶33

i. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.

¶34

1(2020) 11 SCC 648

¶35

4

¶36

iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the Visakhapatnam without prior permission from the Investigating Officer or from the learned Trial Court concerned.

¶37

iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while he is enlarged on bail and in case, if any report is lodged against the Petitioner about commission of any offence, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file a petition seeking for cancellation of the bail.

¶38

v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

¶39

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶40

Date: 08.12.2025 VTS

Punyamanthula Tirumala Ramesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punyamanthula Tirumala Ramesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Kar Vs Kalpana Kar

Vulavalapudi Lakshmi Narasimha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppaka Veerababu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jakkala Vignesh Alias Sai Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Idupulapati Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Srinivasarao Palavarapu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh