Allowed

Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRLRC/1049/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order modified conditions imposed in two interim bail petitions by replacing the requirement for personal bonds with individual sureties with a Bank Guarantee for a statutory liquidator.

What did the court decide?

The requirement to furnish personal bonds with sureties was modified; the petitioner must now furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs.45,20,000/- and Rs.2,05,000/-.

Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited Vs The… — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010472372026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3521]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 1049 and 1051 of 2026

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1049/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

MANGALAGIRI TEXTILE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,REP. BY ITS LIQUIDATOR,GOLLA RAMAKANTHA RAO,AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC INSOLVENCY PROFESSIONAL,R/O. FLAT NO. 1106, BLOCK-4, CALVARY TEMPLE ROAD,HYDERGAR, HYDERABAD-500049.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATHI.THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAGIRI POLICE STATION, GUNTURDISTRICT.

¶15

KALAVAKOLLU GOPIRAJU ALIAS GOPI, KALAVAKOLLU GOPIRAJU ALIAS GOPI A3

¶16

THIMMISETTY SATYANARAYANA A4, THIMMISETTY SATYANARAYANA A4

¶17

SALIPALLI PRASAD A5, SALIPALLI PRASAD A5

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.AISHWARYA NAGULA

¶21

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1051/2026

¶25

Between:

¶26

MANGALAGIRI TEXTILE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,REP. BY ITS LIQUIDATOR,GOLLA RAMAKANTHA RAO,AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC INSOLVENCY PROFESSIONALR/O. FLAT NO. 1106, BLOCK-4, CALVARY TEMPLE ROAD,HYDERGAR, HYDERABAD-500049.

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

AND

¶29

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATHI.THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAGIRI POLICE STATION,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶30

KALAVAKOLLU GOPIRAJU ALIAS GOPI, KALAVAKOLLU GOPIRAJU ALIAS GOPI

¶31

THIMMISETTY SATYANARAYANA, THIMMISETTY SATYANARAYANA

¶32

SALIPALLI PRASAD, A5 (RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES)

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.AISHWARYA NAGULA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

¶40

COMMON ORDER:

¶41

The Criminal Revision Case Nos.1049 and 1051 of 2026 are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order, as the Crime and the Petitioner are one and the same.

¶42

The Criminal Revision Case No.1049 of 2026 has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) seeking modification of the condition imposed in the order dated 22.06.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.292 of 2026 in Crime No.73 of 2026, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ‑ cum ‑ Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri (for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’).

¶43

The Criminal Revision Case No.1051 of 2026 has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of ‘the BNSS’ seeking modification of the condition imposed in the order dated 09.06.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.238 of 2026 in Crime No.73 of 2026, on the file of ‘the learned Trial Court.’

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶45

The Petitioner is an Insolvency Professional appointed pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench in CP(IB) No.76/7/AMR/2022.

¶46

In Crl.M.P.No.238 of 2026, the Petitioner sought interim custody of 41 Electric Motors along with cash amount of Rs.45,20,000/-. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 09.06.2026, partly allowed the petition and ordered

¶47

¶48

release/interim custody of the Electric Motors subject to conditions including furnishing of a personal bond for Rs.2,05,000/- with two sureties for a sum of Rs.1,02,500/- each.

¶49

In Crl.M.P.No.292 of 2026, the Petitioner sought interim custody/release of the seized cash amount of Rs.45,20,000/-. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 22.06.2026, directed release/interim custody subject to conditions including furnishing of a personal bond for Rs.45,20,000/- with one or two sureties for a sum of Rs.22,60,000/- each, and further directed that the cash shall be produced as and when directed by the Court.

¶50

The Petitioner, being a statutory officer discharging functions under the directions of the National Company Law Tribunal, ought not to have been burdened with the requirement of personal sureties.

¶51

In view of the above, this Court finds no justification for insisting upon personal bonds with sureties. The impugned orders are accordingly modified as follows:

¶52

“The Petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs.45,20,000/- in respect of Crl.M.P.No.292 of 2026. The Petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs.2,05,000/in respect of Crl.M.P.No.238 of 2026.”

¶53

Accordingly, the two Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

¶55

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶56

closed.

¶57

_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶58

Dt: 10.09.2026 PRA/VMM

¶59

¶60

125

¶61

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶62

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 1049 and 1051 of 2026

¶63

10.09.2026

¶64

PRA/VMM

Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases