Shaik Jaleel vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

APHC010154232026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2351/2026

Between:

1. SHAIK JALEEL, S/O SHAIKYASIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESSR/O PEDDAVADLAPUDI VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.,BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

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 enlarge the petitioner on Regular Bail in Cr.No.531 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District, such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. V R REDDY KOVVURI

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2351/2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has

been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused No.1, seeking regular bail, in

Cr.No.531 of 2025 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under Section 318(4), 351(3), 336(3), 336(2), 340(2),

61(2), 308(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for brevity "BNS").

2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

State. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that notice is served

on the defacto complainant through police.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the defacto complainant

gave a report stating that on 30.11.2025, the complainant along with others

confronted the workers and A2 while two JCB machines were seen cutting

trees on the complainant's land. They showed an agreement dated

18.12.2023 in which the complainant had sold 10.27 acres of vacant land to

A1, but the complainant do not even know who is A1 and the accused

threatened the complainant that bigwigs were involved in the matter. A1 made

fake documents in complainant's name and forged all their signatures and the

accused and some others conspired to grab the lands of the complainant. 3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner/accused No.1 was previously enlarged on regular bail vide

Crl.M.P.No.786 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025 by the learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Mangalagiri. Subsequently, the Police, Mangalagiri P.S., filed an application

dated 19.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2026 on the file of the learned Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the same was allowed on 03.02.2026 by

cancelling the bail granted earlier on the ground that the petitioner had

violated the conditions imposed, by conducting a press meet and commented

on the case. Since 03.02.2026, the petitioner has been in judicial custody. It is

argued that the petitioner's statements during the press meet were made in a

moment of anguish and do not amount to misuse of bail or interference with

justice, and therefore bail should be granted again.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition by contending

that the petitioner's statement that he would "see the end" of the complainant,

amounts to criminal intimidation and misuse of the liberty granted, which could

affect the fair course of the trial. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would

submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

6. Considering the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of

the material placed on record, the grievance of the complainant appears that,

after his release on bail, the accused conducted a press meet and stated that

he would "see the end" of the person who had lodged a false complaint

against him. The record further reveals that, while granting bail, no condition 4

was imposed restraining him from commenting on the case through social

media or any other electronic media, which may have led the petitioner to

address the press and make statements regarding the case that is still

pending consideration before the Court. It appears that, in a state of anguish,

he may have made the said statement; however, such a statement alone

cannot constitute sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. In that view of the

matter, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/Accused

No.1 on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond

for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with

two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior

Division) Court, Mangalagiri.

ii) The petitioner/accused No.1, shall appear before the Station

House Officer concerned, twice in a week i.e., on every

Wednesday and Saturday between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, till

further orders.

iii) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when required and cooperate with

the investigation.

5

iv) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not directly or indirectly

induce, threaten or influence any witness acquainted with the

facts of the case.

v) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not tamper with the

prosecution evidence in any manner.

vi) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not leave India without

prior permission of the Court concerned.

vii) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall furnish his residential

address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall

keep the Investigating Officer informed of any change of

address.

viii) The petitioner/accused No.1, shall surrender his passport, if

any, to the Investigating officer. If he claims that she do not have

passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Court

concerned.

ix) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall furnish information relating

to the offence if any, for the purpose of early conclusion of

investigation.

x) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall refrain from conducting any

press meets and shall not directly or indirectly make any

statements relating to this case in the social media or any other

social network platform 6

7. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution

shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

8. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for

the purpose of deciding the bail applications and they shall not be construed

as opinion on the merits of the Crime.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.04.2026.

UPS 7 105 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2351/2026

Dt.02.04.2026

UPS