| |
CDJ 2025 APHC 1793
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 11561 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Karumanchi Surendra & Another Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati through The Station House Officer, Tangutur Police Station Prakasam. |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Mallavolu Nikitha, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 05-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
- Sections 338 and 316 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS Act)
2. Catch Words:
- bail
- petition
- misappropriation
- investigation
- surety
- charge sheet
- police custody
3. Summary:
The Criminal Petition under BNSS sought bail for Accused Nos. 1 and 3 in a case involving offences under the BNS Act. The court noted that this was the second bail application after an earlier dismissal. Accused 2 (Accused 3) was found not to have worked with the de‑facto complainant and was therefore granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including a bond, regular reporting to the police, travel restrictions, and non‑interference with witnesses. Conversely, Accused 1 was alleged to have misappropriated Rs 30 crore and was deemed a flight risk, leading the court to refuse bail. The petition was thus partially allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. 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 & 3 on bail in Cr.No.207 of 2025 of Tanguturu Police Station, Prakasam District, for the offences under Sections 338 and 316 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS Act’).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. As seen from the record, this is the second bail application filed by the petitioners. Earlier, this Court, vide order dated 29.10.2025 in Crl.P.No.10601 of 2025, dismissed the first bail application. The second bail application was filed on 06.11.2025. Pursuant to the dismissal of the first bail application, some more witnesses are yet to be examined. A petition was filed seeking police custody of the petitioners for the third time, but the same was dismissed. Accused No.2 has already been enlarged on bail. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is the nephew of Accused No.1. Accused No.3 has not worked with the de-facto complainant. Accused No.1 transferred some amount to Accused No.3, and later Accused No.3 withdrew the same, as per the allegation of the prosecution.
4. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 and the fact that he never worked with the de-facto complainant, this Court is inclined to enlarge Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 on bail with the following stringent conditions.
i. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Singarayakonda, Prakasam District.
ii. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall appear before the Station House Officer, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.
iii. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
iv. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.
v. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.
vi. The petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 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.
5. However, insofar as Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is concerned, he worked with the de-facto complainant, and there is an allegation that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 has misappropriated an amount of Rs.30 crores belonging to the de-facto complainant.
6. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, and as the investigation is still at a progressive stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 on bail.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, dismissing the petition insofar as Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is concerned, and allowing the petition in favour of Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3.
|
| |
