A.Venkatesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.VENKATESH,, S/O.CHINNASUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.D.NO.1 -221 .YADAVAPURAMVILLLAGE, PENDLIMARRYMANDAL.YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA.

¶11

...Petitioner/De-facto Complaint

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

GURIVIREDDYGARICHINNAPULLA REDDY G PULLAREDDYVILEKAR, S/O.G.CHINNAPULLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.106, STREET NO.2B, SINGAPUR TOWNSHIP NEAR RIMS, KADAPA CITY.

¶15

GURVIREDDYGARI NAGA PULLA REDDY, (G)RAMA RAO @ NTR, S/O.G.CHINNAPULLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, PENDLIMARRYMANDAL, YSR DISTRICT.

¶16

...Respondent/Proposed Accused:

¶17

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 Courtpleased to Cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in CrI.M.P.No.521/2024, VI Addl.

¶18

2

¶19

Sessions Judge:Kadapa District, ( In Crime.No.63/2024, Pendlimarry Police Station, PendlimarryMandal, YSR District.)

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶21

1.P V N KIRAN KUMAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶23

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

2.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1971/2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) by the petitioner/de-facto complainant seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.6 and 7 by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa setting aside the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.521 of 2024 in connection with Crime No.63 of 2024 of Pendlimarry Police Station, Pendlimarry Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

Heard Sri P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, and Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶31

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.04.2024 at about 6:40 p.m., in the agricultural fields situated on the eastern side of Chinnadasaripalli village, Pendlimarry Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, accused Nos.1 to 5 allegedly hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, namely Adimulam Srinivasulu. It is alleged that when the deceased was working in his field, an altercation took place between him and the accused persons in connection with a dispute relating to a pathway to the agricultural lands. During the course

¶32

4

¶33

of the quarrel, accused No.1 allegedly pushed the deceased and, in furtherance of their common intention, accused Nos.2 to 4 allegedly caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased, while accused No.2 sat on the chest of the deceased and repeatedly hit his head against the ground, resulting in fatal intracranial injuries, leading to the death of the deceased at the spot. Based on the complaint, the police registered the above crime.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in Crime No.63 of 2024 seven persons were suspected to be involved, including respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. He would further submit, even prior to the occurrence, complaints were submitted to the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, stating that the deceased was facing life threats from respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, the police failed to array them as accused either in the FIR or in the preliminary charge sheet. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17744 of 2024 before this Court seeking appropriate directions for inclusion of the other persons as accused. It is contended that thereafter the police proposed to add respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the charge sheet. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.521 of 2024, which was allowed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, by order dated 07.11.2024, but the court below failed to consider the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and granted anticipatory bail in a mechanical manner, particularly when the investigation was still at a crucial

¶35

5

¶36

stage. Therefore, the petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶37

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. He would further submits that after completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet and the same was numbered as PRC No.12 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed the petition and submitted that initially, the police filed a preliminary charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5 and clearly stated that no evidence had emerged against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. He would further submit that only after the petitioner filed the writ petition and exerted pressure, the investigating agency recorded further statements and sought to implicate respondent Nos.2 and 3 as accused Nos.6 and 7. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the stage of investigation and the material available on record, granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by a reasoned order. It is further submitted that the respondents have been complying with the conditions of bail and have not misused the liberty granted to them. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 further submitted that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail and that once bail has been granted, the same can be cancelled only upon the existence of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses or violation of bail conditions.

¶39

6

¶40

Perused the material available on record. A thorough perusal of the record would show that the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, seems to have been passed after considering the stage of investigation and the material available on record. The petitioner did not place any material before this Court to demonstrate that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have violated the conditions of bail, interfered with the investigation, threatened witnesses, or misused the liberty granted to them. Therefore, this Court does not find any valid or compelling ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶41

However, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offence involved, this Court is of the view that in order to meet the ends of the justice, certain additional conditions are required to be imposed.

¶42

Accordingly, while declining to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3, the following additional conditions are imposed:

¶43

i) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week, preferably on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., till committal of the case.

¶44

ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not directly or indirectly contact, threaten, or influence any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶45

iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall cooperate with the investigation and trial and shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates unless exempted.

¶46

7

¶47

iv) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3, shall not leave the limits of Country without the express permission from the concerned Court.

¶48

v) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3, shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Court concerned.

¶49

In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to recourse to take appropriate steps for cancellation of bail before the appropriate Court.

¶50