Madakam Venkateswararao, (A1) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Station House Officer, Buttaigudem Police Station, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. Respondent/Complainant Petition Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C), is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners on regular bail in Crime No. 56 of 2026 on the file of Buttaigudem Police Station, Eluru District, for the offences alleged under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 308(3), 308(5), 111(2)(b), 111(3)(6), 112(2) B.N.S. and Sections 4 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 & 8, Public Prosecutor for Respondent N0.I & 2 and the Court made the following. ORDER 2

7.KAKI JAYARAJU, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/0. VELUTHURIVARIGUDEM V, BUTTAIGUDEM M, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.YEARS, K0WSAYYAA8,AGED S/0. 35 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BUTTAIQUDEM POLICE STATION, ELURUDISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.JADASRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 on bail in Crime No.56 of 2026 of Buttaigudem Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 308(3), 111(2)(b), 111(3)(6) and 111(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 4 & 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. / 3

2. Mr.Ramineni Sudheer, thejearned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Petition.

3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners. He submits that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

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

5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioners were arrested on 02.06.2026. They have been in judicial custody for the past 77 days. So far, nine witnesses have been examined. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the police custody petition in respect of the Petitioners was filed before the learned Magistrate well within the prescribed time. However, as the Presiding 4 Officer of the Court concerned was on leave, the said custody petition could not be taken up for consideration and disposal.

6. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, in State of A.P v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju^ at paragraph No.22, it was held as under: “22. The statutory scheme under the BNSS must also be borne in mind. Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window during which police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the investigating agency, such custody being available in parts, during the first forty or sixty days of the total permissible period of detention, rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone. This legislative change was intended precisely to meet situations, such as the present, where fresh facts, discoveries or leads may emerge during the course of investigation warranting further custodial interrogation, and an unduly rigid or premature foreclosure whether by a Magistrate or by a court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, would run counter to the object of the provision. We are, therefore, unable to sustain Condition 28.15, which places an absolute and non- extendable outer limit on custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) BNSS regardless of what the investigation may yet reveal.” statutory window, of that

7. In the present case, the allegation under Section 111(2)(b) of ‘the BNS’ is specifically directed against Petitioner No. 1/Accused No.1. There are nearly 29 antecedents reported against Petitioner No. 1/Accused No.1 and 5 adverse antecedents reported against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2. Accused No.5 has got seven antecedents, whereas Accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 8 have one antecedent each. The Petitioners have also not disclosed in the petition the adverse antecedents reported against them. 2026 I NSC 744 5

8. In this regard, it is apposite.to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,^ wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication.

9. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information. ^2026 see Online 188 6

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner No. 1/Accused No.1 bail at this stage. Hence, the petition insofar as the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is concerned is dismissed.

11. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against Petitioner Nos.2 to 7/Accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8, and upon considering the entire gamut of the litigation, this Court is inclined to enlarge Petitioner Nos.2 to 7/Accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 on bail, subject to stringent conditions. i. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 7/Accused Nos.2 to 6 & 8 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem. ii. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 7/Accused Nos.2 to 6 & 8 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet, iii. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 7/Accused Nos.2 to 6 & 8 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned, iv. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 7/Accused Nos.2 to 6 & 8 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. ./ 7 V. The Petitioner Nos.Z to 7/Accused Nos.2 to 6 & 8 shall cooperate Investigating Officer further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required, vi. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 7/Accused Nos.2 to 6 & 8 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.V.RAGHAVULU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , _ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddy Gudem.

3. The Superintendent, Eluru Sub-Jail.

4. The Station House Officer, Buttaiqudem Police Station, EluruDistrict, Andhra Pradesh.

5. One CC to SRI. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CC’s to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati. [OUT]

7. One spare copy. TVSR s HIGH COURT DR.YLR.J DATED: 17/08/2026 ORDER CRLP.No.6684 of 2026 ALLOWED