Kottevalla Jayaprakash Reddy @ Jaya @ Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

1.KOTTEVALLA JAYAPRAKASH REDDY @ JAYA @ REDDY, S/O. MUNIRATHNAM, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O VINAYAKA TEMPLE, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶11

2.THOTI MANJUNADH @ MANJU, S/O MUNICHOWDAPPA, AGED 37 YRS, R/O MAREDUPALLE VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

¶15

2.V SATHEESH, S/O. SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 31, R/O.D.NO.420, SETIN THANGAL, KURCHIVEDU, NARASINGARAYANIPETTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.1905 OF 2025.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶18

1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

2

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2.P SAI SURYA TEJA

The Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) [Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’)] seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Court for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor, which arose out of Crime No.130/2015 of I Town Police Station, Chittoor.

¶26

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chittoor/Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against Petitioners and twenty one others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 120-B, 109 read with 149, 212, 216 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’), Sections 25(1A), 25(1AAA), 25(1B)(a), 25(1B)(c), 27(3) and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The Petitioners were arrested by the Investigating Officer on 24.11.2015. Since then, they have been in the judicial custody.

¶27

Provenance of the case of the prosecution as emanated from the averments of the charge sheet is as follows:

¶28

On 17.11.2015 V. Satish Kumar Naidu gave a statement to the police in CMC Hospital, Vellore. Basing on the statement, a case was registered in

¶29

3

¶30

Crime No.130/2015 of Chittoor I Town Police Station against accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 120-B, 301 r/w 511 r/w 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sec.25(1B)(a) and 27 of ‘the Act’. It is stated in the report that on 17.11.2015 V. Satish Kumar Naidu went to Municipal Corporation Office, Chittoor to meet Katari Mohan, who was the husband of Mayor of Chittoor Municipal Corporation, to discuss about his father's transfer. When he is in the chambers of the Mayor at about 11:45 a.m., the accused No.1 to 4 entered into the Chambers of Mayor. Out of four of the above accused, two persons were in Burkhas. The accused No.1 had removed his Burkha and shot the Mayor on her head with a revolver. Accused No.3 hacked Katari Mohan with a knife on his neck. When the de-facto complainant tried to stop accused No.4, he hacked him on his back. When Katari Mohan had run away into the conference Hall which is attached to the Mayor's chamber, all the accused chased him and hacked him with knives. Thereafter the persons who were there viz., Murali, Chinna, Kishore, Vijay Kumar and others shifted the Mayor Anuradha, Katari Mohan and the de-facto complainant to hospital, where the doctors declared that the Mayor was brought dead. Thereafter, Katari Mohan, who received serious injuries, and the de-facto complainant were shifted to CMC Hospital for better treatment.

¶31

After registration of FIR, police took up investigation. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners and 21 others.

¶32

4

¶33

Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent, they did not commit any offence, much less the alleged offences; they were falsely implicated in this case by the de-facto complainant; there was a delay of eight hours in lodging the report though the incident occurred in the heart of Chittoor City and the Police Station is within one kilometre away from the scene of offence; as it is a sensational case in Chittoor District, although Police were aware about the incident immediately within minutes and number of persons were available, the FIR was registered not immediately; there were number of instances which show that the FIR was brought into existence after due deliberations and consultations for implicating the Petitioners as Accused in the case.

¶34

It is further submitted that as per the allegations of the charge sheet, the Petitioners along with another after participating in the alleged attack had gone to the Police Station and surrendered before the Police within one hour after the incident seeking protection from the followers of the deceased. However, strangely the Police on the same day at about 08:00 p.m., allowed the Petitioners to go to their houses although the FIR was lodged by attributing specific overt acts against them. Therefore, the version of the Investigating Officer is highly suspicious, almost all the witnesses are highly interested, and their version is doubtful.

¶35

It is further submitted that out of twenty-three Accused, except the Petitioners, all the other Accused including Accused Nos.1 and 2 were granted bail. The Deceased No.2/Katari Mohan had several enemies and he himself

¶36

5

¶37

was Accused in several criminal cases including the offence punishable under Section 302 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The Petitioners got fixed place of abode, and they are ready to furnish surety for their future appearances and the Petitioners are ready to abide by any condition which this Court may deem it fit to impose. The de-facto complainant is stranger to the Petitioners, hence, the question of mentioning the name of the Petitioners in the FIR does not arise.

¶38

It is further submitted that this Court dismissed the bail applications in Crl.P.No.11124 of 2017, Crl.P.No.5494 of 2022 and Crl.P.No.2780 of 2024 for grant of bail. Later the Petitioners along with other Accused preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2024. It is furthermore submitted that a learned Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.8457 of 2024 dated 07.02.2025 granted bail to Accused No.1. The Petitioners are also standing on the same footing. The specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioners are less graver than Accused No.1. The reasons given by this Court for granting bail to Accused No.1 are squarely applicable to the case of the Petitioners also.

¶39

It is furthermore submitted that this Court while dismissing Crl.P.No.2032 of 2020 by order dated 16.07.2020 directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of three months and even thereafter on numerous occasions, this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time directed the Trial Court to complete the trial expeditiously. However, till now the trial is not completed for one reason or other. The last bail application filed by the Petitioner No.2 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

¶40

6

¶41

12.07.2024. Even after eight months period lapsed, there is no progress in the trial.

¶42

It is further submitted that, except for the examination of the Investigating Officer (L.W.130), the evidence of all other prosecution witnesses has been duly completed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that, notwithstanding the absence of any material to support such an allegation, it is routinely contended particularly at the instance of the Counsel for the de-facto complainant and other interested parties harbouring animosity towards the Petitioners that the Petitioners are responsible for protracting the trial proceedings. However, a perusal of the record, it would reveal that, subsequent to the year 2020, there has been no order of stay operating in the matter, nor there is any instance on record wherein the Petitioners can be said to have occasioned delay in the process of the trial. Learned Counsel for Petitioners further submits that such allegations are being strategically advanced to prejudice their legitimate right to seek bail. The Petitioners have undergone incarceration for a period exceeding nine years in connection with the present case, and such prolonged detention, in the absence of any demonstrable delay attributable to them, has resulted in severe hardship and prejudice to their rights, and urged to allow the criminal Petition on whatever conditions this Court deems fit.

¶43

Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the Petitioners hacked P.W.1 (victim/ de-facto complainant) with an intention to kill him when P.W.1 tried to rescue the Deceased No.2. The

¶44

7

¶45

Petitioners along with other Accused indiscriminately hacked with sickles and firearms resulting in the death of two persons in broad day light in the office chambers of Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Chittoor. Several applications have been filed at the behest of the Petitioners and other Accused one after the other to prolong the trial. Had the Petitioners and other Accused cooperated with the learned Trial Judge in completion of the case, it would not have taken nine long years for disposal of a Sessions Case. Therefore, the Petitioners and other Accused are to be blamed for the delay in conducting the trial.

¶46

When G.Rajaram, Special Public Prosecutor was appointed by the then Government on 25.10.2014 to conduct trial in this case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appeared for more than one year, several miscellaneous petitions were filed by the Accused. During the trial several times the Accused absconded. The learned Trial Court was constrained to issue warrants for their appearance. The Petitioners and other Accused have played all the tricks to get the case adjourned from time to time for one reasons or other including making allegations against the presiding officer or the public prosecutors and changing the advocates.

¶47

The Petitioners filed a petition in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.5478 of 2018 before the Sessions Court, Chittoor to delay the trial proceedings making bald allegations against the presiding officer of the Trial Court and later not pursued the petition. Later the same Counsel for the present Petitioners filed Transfer Petition in C.F.No.521/2022 in the name of another accused stating that the Trial Court

¶48

8

¶49

had no jurisdiction, the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor returned the petition with detailed order about the tactics played by the accused to delay the proceedings.

¶50

On 11.04.2022, the date of Commencement of the schedule, the 4^th accused/Petitioner No.2 had dubiously admitted in Hospital and filed petition under section 273 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ not to proceed with the trial. From the date of committal to this date, the accused have been causing delay in the trial and filed several petitions before the Trial Court and protracting trial. The Accused No.1 who was enlarged on bail in the month of February 2025 filed a transfer petition, after his release, making bald allegation against the presiding officer and filed petitions to stall the proceedings before the Trial Court. The Accused No.23 threatened two police officers who were assisted in Investigation and cited as witnesses, consequently, two crimes were registered against Accused No.23 in Two Town Police Station in Crime No.78 of 2019 and Crime No.79 of 2019 and charge sheets were filed and the same was numbered as C.C No.1489 of 2019 and C.C No.1490 of 2019 and they are coming up for appearance of the accused. It is therefore prayed that unless and until this Court monitors the case by dismissing the present bail application by issuing specific directions to the Trial Court, the case will not be completed.

¶51

Eventually, it is argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is completed, the case is posted for 313 examinations of the accused and urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition by issuing specific directions to the learned Trial Court to complete the trial.

¶52

9

¶53

Mr. P.Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 filed a memo stating that the Petitioners and other Accused played several delayed tactics including filing of a petition in C.F.R.No.359/2018 on the date of schedule stating that he had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.25586/2018 challenging the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and to stall the proceedings. The said petition was dismissed on the same day. On 27.11.2018, when the learned Trial Court called for fixing the date of the schedule, the Petitioners herein instructed their Counsel to withdraw their memo of appearance and their Counsel withdrew his appearance from the case just on the day of fixing the schedule, causing further delay in fixing the schedule. The present Petitioners along with other accused filed Tr.Crl.M.P.No.5478 of 2018 before the District and Sessions Court, Chittoor to delay the trial proceeding making bald allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court and later not pursued the petition. Further, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 raised similar contentions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶54

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 17. Now the point for consideration is:

¶55

“Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?”

¶56

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are

¶57

entitled for release on bail on the principle of parity as the main Accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In this regard, it

¶58

10

¶59

is relevant to comprehend the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, relied on by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana¹ , wherein at paragraph Nos.25 and 26 it is

¶60

held as under regarding the applicability of the principle of parity:

¶61

“25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17)

¶62

“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.”

¶63

26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986]^, [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was “assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)”. Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law.”

¶64

1 (2021) 6 SCC 230

¶65

11

¶66

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on a decision of the

¶67

Hon’ble Apex Court in Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. The Registrar General Jharkhand High Court² , wherein at paragraph No.13 it is held as under:

¶68

“13. Further, we expect that in order to maintain consistency in the views taken by the Court, the learned judge, who will hear the subsequent applications filed for bail, may give due weightage to the views taken by the earlier judge, who had dealt with the bail applications arising out of the same FIR.”

¶69

However, in the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Singh

¶70

v. State of U.P.³ , relied on by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, it is held that parity cannot be drawn while considering the bail application of coaccused.

¶71

In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh⁴ , set aside the order of granting bail by the High Court and directed the accused therein be arrested forthwith, by observing that it is the duty of the Court to record reasons and to take note of events subsequent to the incident, when granting bail after once it was refused.

¶72

This Court in vide order dated 07.02.2025 in Crl.P.No.8457/2024 granted bail to the Accused No.1 with certain conditions that he should not enter Chittoor Town except on the days his presence is required before the learned

¶73

2 Writ Petition(Criminal) No.55 of 2025

¶74

3 2023 SCC OnLine All 3199

¶75

4 (2002) 3 SCC 598

¶76

12

¶77

Trial Court; his whereabouts shall be informed to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor and Tirupati; and he shall not threaten or influence the witnesses.

¶78

Indeed, as per Ramesh Bhavan Rathod , while applying the principle of parity, this Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner. This Court has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. Parity, while granting bail, must focus upon the role of the accused. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. This Court cannot proceed on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment. Merits or demerits of the facts of the case or evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution cannot be looked into while hearing the application for enlarging the Petitioners on bail.

¶79

Undeniably now the trial has been going on for the past nine and half years. In fact, bail petition filed under Sections 437 and 439 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (Sections 480 & 483 of ‘the BNSS’) is not applicable at this juncture inasmuch as those Sections would only enable the Petitioner when they were on bail during the pendency of the investigation. The appropriate Section of law would be Section 309 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (Section 346 of ‘the BNSS’). Hence, the length of the period of detention in judicial custody is absolutely immaterial.

¶80

The allegations of the prosecution against the Accused No.1 are that he shot the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation on her head with a revolver, whereas the Petitioners hacked Katari Mohan, husband of the Mayor, with sickles indiscriminately. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 hacked the de-facto

¶81

13

¶82

complainant with a sickle. All the accused including the Petitioners chased Katari Mohan, when he had gone into the conference hall of the Mayor’s Office, and hacked him with sickles. Hence the principle of parity cannot be drawn in favour of the Petitioners and the decision in Shekhar Prasad Mahto is of no help to the Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶83

It has to be pointed out that the Petitioners and other Accused have played all possible dodgy and guileful tactics in prolonging the trial for one reason or the other. To substantiate that there are umpteen number of instances viz., several applications were filed by the Petitioners and other Accused one after another to prolong the trial; every stage of the trial they had not cooperated with the learned Trial Court for smooth conduction of the trial, that is the reason why nine long years have taken, but the sessions case has not reached to its logical conclusion. At last, the Trial is at the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’; Petitioners and other Accused have filed several applications seeking for transfer of sessions case from the present Trial Court by making bald allegations against the presiding the officer and also against the Special Public Prosecutor. Indeed, petitions for transfer of the case were also filed on the ground that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction before the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

¶84

As seen from the record, Petitioner No.2 filed an application under Section 273 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to postpone the trial, when schedule was issued after committal of the case to the learned Trial Court. The accused and the Petitioners made several attempts either to cause delay in the process of trial

¶85

14

¶86

or stall the process of trial. The Accused No.1 who was enlarged on bail by this Court in the month of February 2025 even filed a transfer petition after his release making bald allegations against the presiding officer of the Trial Court. It is also alleged by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the Accused No.23 threatened two police officers who had assisted the investigation. Therefore, two cases were registered against them in two police stations and charge sheets were also filed against them vide C.C.No.1489/2019 and C.C.No.1490 of 2019.

¶87

Further, as seen from the record, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.25586 of 2018 was also filed by the accused challenging the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and tried to stall the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. The Petitioners after the learned Trial Court fixed the schedule, instructed their Counsel to withdraw their memo of appearance and their Counsel had withdrawn their appearance from the case just to cause delay in fixing the schedule.

¶88

Even as per the averments of the present petition, the Petitioners bail application filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was dismissed on 19.01.2024. Mere fact that the Accused No.1 was granted bail by this Court is not a ground to enlarge the Petitioners on bail on the principle of parity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.05.2025 in Miscellaneous Application No.943 of 2025 Crl.A.No.1250 of 2022 extended the time for completing the trial and pronouncing the judgment within another six months, if possible, even earlier also. There is no change of circumstances from the

¶89

15

¶90

date of dismissal of the earlier bail application filed by the Petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of the present application. The learned Trial Court completed the evidence of witnesses of the prosecution and posted the case for examination of the Petitioners and other Accused under Section 313 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (Section 351 of ‘the BNSS’).

¶91

Undoubtedly, if the Petitioners were enlarged on bail at this juncture, that is at the fag end of the trial, there would be turmoil and unrest to the witnesses of the prosecution and it is not safe at this boiling point to enlarge them on bail as they had allegedly involved in brutally murdering the Mayor, who is the first citizen of the city of Chittoor and her husband, in the broad day light in a Government Office in the heart of the city of Chittoor. For the time being, it is safe and requirement of the society to keep the Petitioners in judicial custody till the final judgment of the Trial Court is pronounced, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended time for completion of trial even before six months.

¶92

Further, if the Petitioners are enlarged on bail at the fag end of the trial, their release would wreak havoc in the society, because they were the persons who were allegedly hired by Accused No.1 to commit the brutal double murder in broad day light in the heart of city, that too in Government Office in district headquarters. Furthermore, had the Petitioners and other Accused cooperated with the learned Trial Judge, the trial would not have taken nine long years, and it would have been completed, and the judgment would have been pronounced long back. It is safe and expedient of the hour to keep the

¶93

16

¶94

Petitioners in judicial custody and the trial be completed within the stipulated time as granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and appropriate judgment be passed by the learned Trial Court. In this connection, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court for completion of the trial by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶95

For the above reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for the present.

¶96

However, it is made clear that the observations made herein above were

¶97

only confined to the disposal of bail application and in no way be construed to have an expression on the merits of the case.

¶98

________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶99

Dt: 04.07.2025 VTS

Kottevalla Jayaprakash Reddy @ Jaya @ Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kottevalla Jayaprakash Reddy @ Jaya @ Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pondugala Sukhavani Kumari @ Vani, Repalle Jcjc,Guntur. Vs Dasari Srinivasa Rao, Nidubrolu of Ponnur Jcjc.,&Anr.

Pangi Santosh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tadikonda Rama Kishore Vs the State of A.P. & Another

Shaik Ghouse Basha, E.G.Dt., Vs Shaik Haleema, Krishna & 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Ratildevi Vs State of Andhra Pradeshr

M.Neela Vs state of A.P