Vallabhneni Vamsi Mohan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Ltry~E?HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO EL£i|+

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1829 OF 2025-4/

Between.I

Mr.Vallabhneni Vamsi Mohan, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chand, Age 55 years, Occ.

Former MLA, R/o. Pent House, R.S. Kalyani Towers, Opp. St. Johns School,

srinagar, Gannavaram. /~J

... Petitioner/Accused

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi Through the The SHO Gannavaram pol,'ce

Station, Krjshna District.

...Respondent

petition under section 482 of BNSS/438 OF Cr.P.C. is filed praying

that in -the bI'rCumStanCeS Stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in

support of the criminal petition, the lHigh Court may be pleased to grant EggrE-+es

anticipatory baI'I to the Petitioner/Accused by in the event of his arrest in

connection with Crime No. 42 of 2024 on file of Gannavaram poll'ce station,

Krishna District.

IANO: 1 OF2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS is filed praying that in the

circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to not to

insist the Production Transit (PT) Warrant petition in crime No. 42 of 2024 of

Gannavaram Police Station, pending disposal of the main anticipa{ory bail

Petition in CRLP No. i829 of 2025 in connection with FIR No. 42 of 2024

dated 21.01.2024 registered at Gannavaram police station, Krishna District,

/ the file of the Andhra Pradesh, Pending disposal of CRLP 1829 of 20257Zon

HI-gh Court.

The petition comI-ng On for hearing, upon perusing the PetI-lion and the

memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon bearing the

arguments of M/s. V.DEVI SATYA SRI Advocate for the petitioner, and of

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for th6 Respondent, and the court made the

following

ORDER:

tess-

•±$1 APHCO10084942025 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl I3369]

(special original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

GRIM lNAL PETITIO

Between : ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED vallabhneni Vamsi Mohan AND

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh

counsel for the petitioner/accused-.

1.V.Dev'l Satya Sri

counsel for the Respondent/COmPlainant-.

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following ORDER:

1. The petitioner/accused has filed this Criminal Petition by invoking the

provisions of sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik SurakSha Sanhita, 2023 [for short, 'lBNSS'), seeking Pre-arrest ba" in COnneCtiOn With Crime No.42 of 2024

of Gannavaram Pol-Ice Station, Krishna Distr'lct, involving the OffenCeS

punishable under secllion 326 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Coc!e,1860 {referred to as the lI.P.C.I).

2. The proSeCutiOn'S Case, in brief, iS that this Case Pertains tO VOluntarily

causing grievous hurt, reported on 21.01.2024 at 18'.00 hrs by COmPlainant

Kasaraneni Venkata Pandu Ranga Rao. The incident OCourred the Same day at 15:00 hrs at Park Elite Hotel, KesaraPalli Village, GannaVaram Mandal,

<- --

Krishna District. A real estate busl'nessman, the complainant, was contacted a month prior by an individual identifying himself as Naresh, CEO of Bramara

Real Estate, seeking 50-100 acres of land. On 21.01.2024, the complainant

met Naresh at Park Elite Hotel, accompanied by his friend Sudheer. While

waiting, two men arrived in an lnnova car (APO9BG6869), held the

complainant, and assaulted him with baseball bats and sticks, causing

multiple fractures and injuries. He was admitted to Pinnamaneni Hospital for

treatment. Based on his statement recorded by HC 3033, a case was registered as Cr. No. 42/2024 under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC. The I.O.

inspectecl the crime scene, prepared necessary documentation, and examined six witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The medical officer confirmed the

injuries were grievous. On 01.02.2024, A2 to A5 were apprehended at Kesarapalli village and confessed during questioning. Weapons and the

vehicles used were seized in the presence of mediators. Al was arrested on 06.02.2024. The investigation was completed, and a final charge sheet was submitted before the vlll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Gannavaram.

3. I have heard Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the leamed Public Prosecutor, representing the Respondent-State. Both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the

petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the investigatI-On

concluded with a final report (cF.No.2488/2024) filed before the Vlll Additional

Judicial Magistrate, Gannavaram, on 28.08.2024, in which the petitioner was not named. Ten months' later, following a regime change, the de facto complainant submitted a representation on 06.10.2024, alleging improper investigation, suggesting political vendetta rather than a genuine grievance.

The complainant presented four conflicting versions of the incident (F.I.R.,161

crpc statement, sp representation, and re-examination), undermining his credibility. The peti{ioner's name does'nQt appear in any initial report, and no

\r ` `<v'` `` :-::::``.-. ` ```?`

3¥¥`de material links him to the offence. His alleged involvement is speculat,'ve and

POIi{ically motivated. As a former MLA, the petitioner is being targe{ed due fo

PO{jtiCal rivalry. The injuries sustained by the complainant were minor and non- fatal, negating any I-ntent to kI'lI, and the leamed Magistrate correctly declined

to take cognizance under sec{l'on 307 IPC. The comp'ajnant, 'everagI-ng

political influence, is attemptI-ng tO manipulate the investigation. No new material has surfaced to justify reopening the case. prior cases against the

petitiorler were either compromised, referred, or ended in discharge, and Pending Cases are POIiticaIIy drI-yen.

5. On the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed the grant of anticl'patory bail, cl'tl'ng the ongoing

investigation, the petI-tjOner'S iflVOIVement in multiple cases, and the risk of

tampering with evidence and hindering the I-nvestigation if released.

6. ln Man,Ipa/ V. Ra/-esh7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, prJ'ma faC,'e Or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the cn'me. ]t is settled law that when granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the case's merits has not to be undertaken. That did not mean that whilst granting bail, some reasons for prima faci-e concluding why bail was beI-ng granted did

not have to be indicated.

7. It is settled lawthat while considen'ng the prayerforgrant ofantl'cipatory

bail, the accusationls nature and gravity and the accused's exact role must be

Properly comprehended before arrest is made. If there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution and the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. l{ is also a we]l-

accePted Principle that bail is the rule and the jail 1-S the eXCePtiOrl. Arrest

1 (2020)2SCC 118

*ir€ E_±4 should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional

cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case.

8. This Court views the power to authorize detention as a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. The attitude to arrest first and then

proceed with the rest is despicable. lt has become a handy tool for police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motives.

9. Thelawpresumesan accusedto be innocenttill hisguiltisproven.Asa

presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

10. As evident from the record, the statement of the victim/de facto complainant was recorded based on hospital intimation while he was

undergoing treatment on 21.01.2024, between 16:30 and 17:30 hours. The

duty doctor certified that the patient was conscious and fit to provide a statement. ln his statement, the de facto complainant turn,-shed all relevant details of the incident, .Including the registration numbers of the three vehicles

involved. The casualty officer who attended to him issued a wound certificate, opining that the injuries sustained were grievous. During the investigation, on

06.02.2024, A.1 was arrested and remanded. A.2 to A.5 were also apprehended and arrested subsequently. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the de facto complainant has made inconsistent and conflicting statements regarding the incident. Notably, in the initial report,

there is no mention of the petitioner's name. The victim's statements also suggest a pre-existing animosity towards the petitioner arising out of political

differences. It is only in the statement recorded on 08.10.2024 that LW.1

refers to the petitioner]s alleged involvement. This Court finds merit in the

petitionerJs contention that the petitioner may have been implicated due to

-i-_

-yJ,) -3 subsequent politI-Gal developments. Had the petitioner indeed been involved, his name could reasonably have been expected to appear jn the earlier report, especially considering that the complainant, while under medical treatment,

was still able to recount the sequence of events and recall the vehicle registration numbers in detail. The absence of an explanation as to why the

Petitioner Was not initially named casts a prima facie doubt on the later statement implicating him.

ll. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petl-tioner contends that

the Investigating Officer conducted a reinvestigation based on concocted facts, particularly after a change in the Government, and that he revised the statements of all the witnesses who were initially examined. He submits thaJI such`a perfunctory and politically influenced investigation, which effectively

revises the entire course of the criminal proceedings, is vitiated in law. ln

Support Of this contention, he Placed reliance On the decision Of the Honlble

Supreme Court `ln Devineni Avinash & Others v. The State of Andhra Pracfesh (Final Order dated 25.02.2025 in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 12659-12662 of

2O25), wherctln1 -I+ Observed that lithe apprehension of arrest has come after a

period of more than three years, and according to the petitioners, the reason for the same is the change in the Government in Andhra Pradesh. It has been argued before us that it is not simply a case of slow investigation but it is a

case of no investigation at all. It -IS a Clear Violation of the proviscIOnS Of CrPC

and all the relevant laws which are applicable.......... admittedly no efforts

were made at the hands of the complainant to move before the High Court in a Writ Pet-ItiOn Seeking Proper investigation in the Case."

12. Though the observations made jn the aforesaid decision are indeed applicable to the facts of the present case for the purpose of considering the

petl'tioner's application, they do not lend support to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present investigation amounts to a reinvestigation.

±±2 ~=.?

Bfi I 6

13. The learned public prosecutor rl-ghtly subml-ts that merely because the flnal report submltted by the jnvestjgatI'ng authoritI-eS Was returned, the 'nvestjgatlng agency ,'s not barred from conduct,|ng further investjgatl'on into

th€` offence, even after having prev,ously forwarded a report under sub-sectI-On

(2) of sectlon 173 of the Bharatlya Nyaya sanhlta (BNSS). ln support of hIS contention, he relied on the decI-Sl'On Of the HonJble supreme court in sfafe of T.N. v. Hemendhra Reddfi, wherein it held that-.

8c4asTehsu:;ear:of:nsa:ercQtnunSrfO.f ,t^hle^^:::_r=.:=I! ,dp?ISiOnS Of this Court rendered in caacsceesp:ehder: afikne:: rtehpoo rfnsn.(:+::snu r^e£ r=porfs; -h ;i -:;r;i;I;I ob eueunu:u[be::tteerdeda :nd arec:eoprft:sd la#da:ee£nrt± efhPaO^Srii:InO.n_+_a_f|Ja_iv_ yelry -die-a'; vtuhua{ uecvce': sauf:e:I[tlheea f:nnadl rlenpvoe:lil: ::Indabae:oprner:,h ten M^:!!:i:::Le£a:JP I S |a;==;i;dI:ill ICsVpC:rmd;:es:b;:efotrI :has I nwVoerSdt:: a::negrea? :a cnyn ton acra r-^ry^^?,u_i_,f; ftf;; I";SIL#I:nI :nPtehrem :SaS:bele lfno ro:;:r wsoercdt;: nth f:e3 (:Sl r.nr:rba:ff:?a i+nhs_i :?;I u c;I ;i`I 7uu;; :r" II nL;ees:IagSa;o:n :tnhdeerr

?e7C3t;O2;C 137 ::2ri)hCerrP rlp7c3 (h8a) :n vheassti QCrhPa:

abaef:anna n alf^t::ntt^h:

I: :eriPatre dc-a I:: s:na,Ifi: ;.re,vv!i\;_eon_:,_utI;I:tL i_a: : rV:I;'ourf I u: :Cpuri :a: itlt':deS:I::t::n suenc:IeOIn o ru tnoa ecra rrySIenCgt I : nu i athfeu rfMhaegr I ::Tva:eSt:goart:ov:p\:I nndrerrQ.SQ:IC+i:O^n A;_ I _ir! i_I)ud;i ; I ;i I lps "nu:tLOn eCca:::nagryofuotr thoeE :^a,:IS{rate to review or recall the ord:r\ vaJcV::p;I'n; tlhSe[;.:n[a;reeCpeoS;

85. We may summarise our final conclusion as under:

8a5c:eDEevdenlt :Sften:r#:Q.:::aalf^r:FLO_rf. :s la,i.d Pefore the Magistrate and IS

I=nc:::tt:ad:tit: ;Si nPtehrom:sos:bblel :uVrfehS: : a ;:ovne :fi :ha: ocna s : ; :npnfO^r+:h_e_ rothQearr:A;i;i:;

n:e:tii pt-i ; ;I 'avg;;c-y OS.;;:fr_: ; ya_!lUa Itv:::rL;[oeutafnudrfhleSr gce: :%t oc:tn :uurfcflen rg f: urfbh%l tt:ndv : snt:ge:t£enctiunnndle7r a ,S9::trli ; :ij:ir!;_ii i I: Uaaf'tedrg at;nest f: : :ld urcet:nogrf s_u_b:itted under section 173(2)CrPC h;;£ele-; 'a:cea;tLeCd.

IPs5 2no:rlno::oescsaarrvrylnfghaofutfhfuarih^:::n_ve_s_i:?a:ion :ev:eo:endecreescsa;l%H under tnhra: utQh.eh ^Ordrder -a-;£=i;Iv:i u;;ueC' fiOnea; section 173(8)CrPC lt llrOenp::3(s8h)oCurlPdC;le reviewed, recalled or quashed.

Pn5v3estIFa:i:ohnerh:nnvreos::graQt:Onn^t itnov:ns:Iegsat::oant'IOhne:WCIer:i -lLS_ _:p:?!y_;h. E. nC\:onrn o^tn::^s^:,ifd~{±t continuation :u:;:I::ead" of the ua'rle bO:intgn earlier esu b;ea:I:::

tow IItnhVperS:'lsgea: IuOt:o :W:Cned On: :nri Q hMmo :en:v.:^r ,`^;^;i :;li:I iS ccua nd:eotDbe:a pg ustuob:eact: : r wolfthAPrf:Oc;eeC2uOtlOo: tanned 2:: :st:i:I:nnnt STO;a^S :; ji!_USJ;li,;fr; :.I ualmub:i Pouf[c;anu saep(a:) otfh eAr:;colree , 2nOoto: : haeD D#CnaShtli:uft:Of: ,-:I h:, nil:I^;iC|;:'P ;i: I:;" dt: :b;:JP:[o :ra rc:ayu=o :;5 , therefore, not be appI-ICable to furfh-e; inr;;;;ir;;ti:;. 8f:=4acTchuesr:dISwnh;ltQ:Irnngn::H:rr.,Pn: :o_ s_u_ggesf.tha: the court is obliged to hear thseecat:ocnu :e7d3 (:1h:::PCr:n si deri n g an i-paff;:;i:;u;oL; 'fCu ;;::li :SveOsDtlilggaet:otno uhnedaerr Section 173(8)CrPC.

2 (2023) 16 SCC 779

C=~l_-=ife=`_-a- : -iea2 >ed I

14. ln order to duly consider the Submission made On behalf Of the

petitioner, namely, whether the Investigating officer conducted a further .Investigation or a reinvestigation, I have carefully examined the material

placed on record. lt is evident that, pursuant to the representation submitted by the de facto complainant, the Investigating officer reexamined the complainant as well as some other witnesses. From the record, it iS apparent that based on the statement of LW.7, which indicated that A.2 to A.6, along with two others, had checked into a hotel on 20.01.2024 and checked Out On 22.01.2024, A.7 and A.8 were subsequently added. Additionally, LW.8 and

LW.9 were examined, aS they had accompanied LW.2 while shifting the de facto complainant to the hospital. To establ'lsh the Presence Of the PetitiOner'S

henchmen at the scene of the offence, the statements of LWs.10 and ll were recorded. Relying on this material, A.2 to A.15 were added, and the Section Of

law invoked was altered from section 326 1PC to Section 307 lPC. Further, the Investigating officer examined LW.12, LW.13, and LW.14 to substantiate

the stay of A.2 to A.6 and two others at the hotel dur'lng the afOrementiOned

period. He also recorded the Statement Of LW.16, the store manager Who had provided a slM card to A.1. The aforementiOned material Clearly indicates that the Investigating officer has undertaken further investigation in the matter. i

find no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the exercise was merely a reexaminat-Ion. on the contrary, the record establishes that a substantive further investigation has been conducted.

15l As evident from the record, the de faCtO COmPlainant iS Stated tO have

sustained injuries on nan-vital parts of the body, namely the left knee, left elbow, left ankle, and below the right knee. lt iS Submitted that Since the injuries are not on vital organs, it may be reasonably inferred that there Was no intention to kill and had the accused intended to commit murder, they would likely have targeted Vital areas Such aS the head Or Chest. Furthermore, A.7 to A.12, A.14 and A.15 were aITayed aS accused Persons approximately 15 months after the registration Of the Crime. At the time Of remanding A.7 to = A.12, A.14 and A.15, the learned Magistrate expressed doubt as to whether

the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was attracted, noting that the findings of the investigation did not support the applicability of that charge.

16. The learned public prosecutor representing the Respondent-State

contends that a charge sheet was filed against A.1 to A.6 on 08.02.2024 for

the offences under Sections 326, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC, registered under C.F.No.537 on 09-02-2024. The Trial Court, however, did not take cognizance

and returned the charge sheet on 29.02.2024 with remarks. After compliance with the remarks, the charge sheet was resubmitted on 01.03.2024 under C.F.No.967. lt was returned again on 27.03.2024 with additional remarks,

requiring clarification regarding the visibility of an lnnova car (AP 09 BG 6869)

in the mediator report, and the charge sheet was resubmitted on 28.08.2024 under C.F.No.2488. However, it was returned once more on 20.09.2024 with

objections that were not addressed, and the Trial Court has yet to take cognizance

17. Subsequently, the victim submitted a fresh representation dated 06.10.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, Machilipatnam,

request-lng further investigation due to alleged lapses in the initial

invest-lgation. Acting on directions from senior officers, further investigation

was undertaken and found that charge sheet was filed by doing peripheral investigation only, and included Sections 307,120B, and 147, read with 149 of

the IPC. During the investigation, at the time of arrest of Accused Nos.7 to 12,

14, and 15, their confession statements were recorded on 19.ll.2024, wherein they disclosed .that the offence against LW.1 was committed at the instigation of the petitioner/accused.

18. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that Accused Nos. 1 to 6,

named explicitly by the de facto compla]-nant, have already been remanded

and released on bail. similarly, Accused Nos. 7 to 12,14, and 15-implicated

nearly ten months later, have also been granted bail. ln light of the release of

*3Z> .s3-i __ I_ ,~J_-+ ng`±f

the prime accused, this Court fifids that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be unnecessary. As previously noted, the case against the petitioner is

primarily based on the confession statements of the co-accused, who are already on bail. lt is further submitted that the mobile number used under the

pretext of a real estate business, which allegedly lured the petitioner to the scene of the offence, still needs to be verified. This Court has been informed that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.02.2025 in connection

with Cr. No.137 of 2023. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner's counsel,

there does not ]'mpede the prosecution from verifying electronic data, CCTV

footage, or any dig1-{al evidence available concerning the alleged offence.

Given that the case against the petitioner relies solely on the confession statements of the co-accused, who have since been released, the petitionerJs custody is not warranted for investigation.

19. The initiation of the present criminal proceedings appears to be

inextricably linked to political rivalry between opposing groups. This underlying

motive is evident from the contents of the complainant's statement. It is noteworthy that, despite the alleged political differences between the comp]ainant and the petitioner, the petitioner's name was conspicuously omitted from the original First Information Report (F.I.R.). This omission

implies that there were no direct or immediate allegations against the

petitioner a± the outset of the case. The peti{ioner's name only emerged through a subsequent representation, raising significant concerns about the accusationsl credibility. The petitioner's counsel has persuasively argued that the delayed and seemingly retrospective inclusion of the petitioner's name casts substantial doubt on the truthfulness of the complaint. ln the realm of criminal jurisprudence, such a material omission at the initial reporting stage,

particularly in cases where po]itjcal differences may be a factor, serves as a pertinent consideration in favour of the petitioner.

20. The FIl.Rl im a Criminal case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence, a

though jt may not be substantive. The o`bje`9t Of insisting upon Prompt lodging

a-- ___ _-_-

10 of the F.I.R., with respect to the commission of an offence, is to obtain early

information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed. lf

there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R., it loses the advantage of spontaneity;

danger creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story because of many consultations/ deliberations. The

promptness in lodging the F.I.R. is an assurance regarding the truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged F.I.R. reflects the firsthand account of

what happened and who was responsible for the offence. (In this regard, roference can be made to Thulia Kali V. State of Tamil Nadu.3)

21. Though the delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings as it

always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, this Court views that the Petitioners make at least a case out for grant of anticipatory bail U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.

22. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing; the justification for exercising it is quite another. Apart from the power to arrest, the police officers

must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made routinely on a mere allegation of the commission of an offence made against a person. !t would be prudent and wise for a police officer to make no arrest without reasonable satisfaction being reached after some investigation into the

genuineness of the allegation. (ln this regard, a reference can be made to Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar.4)

23. lt is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the

exception. The Honlble Supreme Court in P.Ch,-c/ambaram V. a,-recforafe of Enforcemenf5considering all the earlier judgments, it was observed that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in that the grant of bail is the rule, and refusal is the exception to ensure that the accused has the opportunity to secure a fair trial.

: (!872) : Sg8 23:3 5 (2019). 9 SCC 66 ll

24. ln S-Iddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Nlaharashtra61 the Hon'b'e Apex Court laid down certain factors and parameters that must be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. lt further held as follows:

113. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accL]Sed iS imperative based On the facts and circumstances of that case. The Court must carefully examine the entire available record, particularly the allegations directly attributed to the accused, which are corroborated by other material and ciroumstances on record.

25. As the material on record shows that there are admittedly political differences between the parties, the possibility of roping the petitioner into the crime cannot be ruled out. The ex-MLA, petitioner has strong societal roots, making it highly unlikely that he would attempt to flee from justice. The facts

-do not warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the nature of the

accusations. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The likelihood of levying accusations of harm or

embarrassment through pot,ential arrest is, not improbable. Thus, ther`e is a

prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Granting anticipatory bail to the

petitioner would not impede the ongoing investigation.

26. Upon careful review of the available material, as there is no risk of interference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioner as the

investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is filed, but it is

returned, this Court finds that an{icipatory bail can be granted to the

petitioner/accused under certain conditions:

(i) . The petitioner/accused is hereby directed to surrender before the station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Kr-ishna District, within two (2) weeks of being released on bail

concerning other pending cases while being held in judicial

custody for ongoing matters®

---==---.>

6 (2011) 1 SCC694 12

(ii) Upon his surrender, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sure{jes for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the

concerned Investigating Officer.

(iii) Following his release, the petitioner shall appear before the concemed Investigating officer as and when his presence is required.

(iv) The petitioner/accused shall not, directly or indI'reCt]y, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade hl-m/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Investigating or Police Officer and shall cooperate with the investigating offI®Cer.

27. lt is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this orcler are

preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance ton the CaSe'S merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed

to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order.

28. The Criminal Petition is a//owed, accordingly.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, in this petition shall stand

closed.

_- Th

sD,-K. KASIRAO.'AelHAR! l'

ASSISTAN' I

//TRUE COPY// SECTION a Fo ToJ

1. The Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District.

2. One CC to SRl. V.DEVI SATYA SRl, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

(.A [OUT] (

\ I::i 4. One spare copy I/f|] .-

HIGH COURT

TMR,J

DATED:08/05/2025

ORDER

CRLP.No.1829 of 2025

ALLOWED

I 3 NIN \\15

\&`..I.-.-`` _-