G. Pedda Subbarayudu @ Nikhil Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. PEDDA SUBBAR A YUDU @ NIKHIL, S/O PRAKASAM, AGED 23 YEARS, R/O NAND Y ALAMPETA VILLAGE, NOW AT G V SATRAM STREET, LOKAYA P ALLI VILLAGE, MYDUKURU MAN D AL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR H IGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRA D ESH AT AMARAVATI, THRO U GH STATION HOUSE OFFICER ALLAGADDA TOWN POLICE, NAN D YAL DISTRICT.

¶14

A V SUBBA REDDY , S/O. SUBBA REDDY, AGED 55 YE A RS, R/O ALLAGADDA TOWN A ND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Petition under Sectio n 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 52 8 of BNSS praying that in the circum s tances stated in the Memorandum of G rounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to cancel the pr e -arrest bail granted to the Responden t No.2/Accused No.2, in Crime No. 91 of 2024 on the file of Allagadda Tow n Police Station, Nandyal, by this H o n'ble Court Order dt 30.05.2024 pass e d in CRLP No. 3744 of 2024,

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶18

2

¶19

1.RAVULA NAGARJUNA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶21

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

2.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

3

¶25

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4344/2024

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent No.2/Accused No.2 in Crime No.91 of 2024 on the file of Allagadda Town Police Station, Nandyal, by the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 30.05.2024 passed in Crl.P. No.3744 of 2024.

¶28

Heard Sri G.Pedda Subbarayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶29

The present petition is filed by the de-facto complainant seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Accused No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within one month from the date of release on anticipatory bail, the respondent/accused got involved in another criminal case, vide Crime No.116 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 324, 326, 120 (B) r/w 34 IPC. It is contended that involvement in a subsequent serious offence constitutes a supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of bail granted earlier.

¶30

4

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor supported the submissions made on behalf of the de-facto complainant and submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused placed on record the charge sheet filed in Crime No.116 of 2024 and submitted that the prosecution itself has ruled out the involvement of the respondent/accused in the present crime, based on technical evidence. He would further submit that the charge sheet reveals that two days prior to the alleged incident in Crime No.91 of 2024, the petitioner along with his family members had left for the United States of America. The investigating agency collected call data records, which indicate that there was no direct meeting or telephonic conversation between the respondent/accused and the other accused persons. Accordingly, the investigating agency ruled out the role of the respondent in the said crime. Learned counsel finally prayed for dismissal of the petition, contending that there is no violation of any of the bail conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail.

¶33

Considering the submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the charge sheet filed in the subsequent case indicates that two days prior to the alleged incident, the respondent/accused had left for the United States along with his family members. The investigating agency has also collected the call data records

¶34

5

¶35

and arrived at the conclusion that there is no material evidence indicating any direct meeting or telephonic communication between the respondent/accused and the other accused persons in the said crime. In view of the said technical evidence, the prosecution itself ruled out the involvement of the present respondent.

¶36

It is well settled law that once anticipatory bail is granted, the same cannot be cancelled in a routine manner unless there are supervening circumstances, such as misuse of liberty, interference with the investigation, tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or violation of the conditions of bail.

¶37

In the present case, the anticipatory bail was granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.3744 of 2024 dated 13.05.2024. The petitioner has failed to place any material before this Court to demonstrate that the respondent/accused has violated any of the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail, or that he has misused the liberty granted to him. In the absence of any such material or supervening circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

6

¶39

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no

¶40

order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶42

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.03.2026. KKV

¶43

7