Sandeep Rama Sankar Upadhyaya Sandeep Beraram Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010712682025

¶2

[3396]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13489/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

SANDEEP RAMA SANKAR UPADHYAYA SANDEEP BERARAM, S/O RAMA SANKAR UPADHYAY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O H.NO.03, WELFARE SOCIETY, GANESHWADI, BEHIND AVM SCHOOL, LAKSHMI NAGAR, KURAR VILLAGE, EAST MALAD, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. MOBILE NO

¶9

MOHAMMAD IQBAL SHAIK, S/O FAKIR MOHAMMAD SHAIKI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O AMAN HOUSING SOCIETY, RANI SATI MARG, NEAR DIVINE CHILDRENS SCHOOL, INDRA NAGAR, KURAR VILLAGE, EAST MALAD, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, Through S.H.O, Tanuku Town Police Station, West Godavari District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 relax the conditions imposed in the Order, dt.17- 12-2025, in CIS No.62 of 2025 in CrI.M.P No.1003 of 2025 in Crime No.227 of 2025, on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Tanuku, and to pass

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶16

2

¶17

1.KARRE SATYANANDAM

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

3

¶21

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13489/2025

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 483(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to relax the conditions imposed in the Order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, at Tanuku, in CIS No.62 of 2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1003 of 2025 in Crime No.227 of 2025.

¶24

Heard Sri Karre Satyanandam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners herein are Accused Nos. 6 and 7. He would further submit that despite the Order dated 17.12.2025 for release of the petitioners on regular bail, the petitioners are languished in jail since 17.12.2025. The petitioners herein are non-locals, they could not produce any local sureties who are having immovable properties before the Court. They have come from the State of Maharastra for doing Coolie works for eking out their livelihood.

¶26

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders.

¶27

Considering the submissions made, since the petitioners are in jail, though the bail has already been granted on 17.12.2025 as they are non-

¶28

4

¶29

locals, the 1^st condition imposed by the Trial Court is modified to the extent that the petitioners/Accused Nos. 6 & 7, are directed to make two fixed deposits each for an amount of Rs.25,000/-, totaling Rs.50,000/- each, before the Trial Court.

¶30