The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Perni Jaya Sudha — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Perni Jaya Sudha — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Cancellation of anticipatory bail refused; respondent/accused No.1 directed to cooperate with the investigation and furnish any material required to enable the investigating agency to conclude the investigation at the earliest; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail granted to the respondent/Accused No.1 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, ought to be cancelled. +1 more

Court's answer

It is not the case that the respondent/accused has violated the conditions of bail imposed while granting anticipatory bail to her.

Ratio / Principle

It is not in dispute that the respondent/accused has not been cooperating with the investigation after her release.

Key takeaways

The Court found no reason to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent/accused No.1.ratio¶¶27
The petition was disposed of by directing the respondent/accused No.1 to cooperate with the investigation and furnish any material, if required, relating to the case, so as to enable the investigating agency to conclude the investigation at the earliest possible time.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C read with Section 528 of BNSS filed by the State (through the Station House Officer, Bandar Taluka P.S., Krishna District) seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent/Accused No.1 (Perni Jaya Sudha) vide order dated 30.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2024 passed by the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in connection with Crime No.349 of 2024 of Bandar Taluka P.S. Held: no violation of the bail conditions was made out; however, non-cooperation with the investigation after release was not disputed; the charge sheet had not yet been filed; allegation that certain funds were transferred to the accused's account from the accounts of other accused was noted. Finding no reason to interfere with the judicial discretion of the trial court in granting anticipatory bail, the High Court disposed of the petition, directing the accused to cooperate with the investigation and furnish any material required so as to enable the investigating agency to conclude the investigation at the earliest; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

APHC010049452025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1050/2025

Between:

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BANDAR TALUKA PS, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI.

...PETITIONER

AND

PERNI JAYA SUDHA, W/O. VENKATRAMAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS R/O.D. NO.23/346, RAMANAIDUPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to Cancel the Bail granted to the Respondent/Accused No.1 in Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2024 dated 30.12.2024 on the file of IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.G.SAI LOCHAN

2

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1050/2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent/Accused No.1 vide order dated 30.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2024 passed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, in connection with Crime No.349 of 2024 of Bandar Taluka P.S., Krishna District.

Heard Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State/petitioner and Sri G.Sai Lochan, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

As can be seen from the record, it is not the case that the respondent/accused has violated the conditions of bail imposed while granting anticipatory bail to her. However, it is also not in dispute that the respondent/accused has not been cooperating with the investigation after her release.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State would submit that he charge sheet has not yet been filed in this matter. It is alleged against the respondent/accused No. 1 that certain funds have been transferred to her account from the accounts of the other accused.

Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on

record, since this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judicial

3

discretion exercised by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent/accused No. 1, it is apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondent/accused No.1 to cooperate with the investigation and

to furnish any material, if required, relating to the present case, so as to enable the investigating agency to conclude the investigation at the earliest possible time.

6. With the above said observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 10.03.2026. UPS

4

255

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1050/2025

Dt.10.03.2026

UPS