logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 224 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Parties : Ventrapati Mahesh Alias Pedda Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 13-02-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 372/374(2)/378(4) -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to The above named appellants begs to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal against the order dt.09.12.2025 passed in CrI. M.P.No.1348/2025 on the file of Special Judge for case under S.Cs & S.Ts (PoA) Act-cum-X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram dismissing the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused No. 5, U/s.483 of BNSS for the following among other grounds)

1. Heard Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/A5 and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is A5 in SC/ST S.C.No.104 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-X Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the appeal is preferred U/s.14(A) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, challenging the order dated 09.12.2025 of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-X Addl.District Judge at Rajamahendravaram, refusing to release the appellant/A-5 on bail.

4. He would further submit that Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the appellant on 06.02.2025 by the trial Court. He was remanded to judicial custody on production by executing prison transfer warrant on 20.03.2025, as the appellant/A-5 was detained under Preventive Detention Proceedings relating to other cases. The trial Court did not consider the facts properly, though accused was released on bail during the course of investigation, and his absence was explained properly.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that notice was taken to the victim as contemplated under Section 15(A)(3) of SCs & STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015 and it was served to the victim on 05.02.2026. No one appeared for the victim.

6. He would further submit that the appellant was released on bail during investigation. The case is coming for trial before the Special Court. He was absent on 06.02.2025 without any reason. Therefore, Special Court issued Non-bailable Warrant against the appellant/A-5. Later, the accused was detained in connection with Prevention of Detention Proceedings. Therefore, he was produced before the trial Court through prison transfer warrant. He was remanded to judicial custody under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. The bail petition in the present appeal is the third application. Earlier, two applications were dismissed by the Special Court.

7. The appellant also filed an appeal earlier in this Court vide Crl.A.No.420/2025. This Court considered the appeal and dismissed the appeal on merits. He would further submit that the appellant involved in several criminal cases, which includes Murder, Dacoity and NDPS cases. A rowdy sheet is also pending against the appellant/A-5. If he is released on bail, it would hamper the trial proceedings. He would also argue that the bail granted to the appellant/A-5 earlier is not cancelled so far. Therefore, the application for bail again is not maintainable in law, and this appeal may be dismissed.

8. During the course of hearing, it came to light that the appellant/A-5 was released on bail during investigation of the case. It is not known whether the said bail order was cancelled at the time of issuing Non-bailable Warrant by the trial Court. It is also not known whether the bail bond of the appellant was cancelled and forfeited while issuing Non-baialble Warrant for breach of the bond. It is also not known whether the bail bonds of the sureties were cancelled in accordance with law and notices were issued for imposing penalty.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/A-5 at this juncture, would submit that appellant may be permitted to withdraw the appeal, with a liberty to approach the Special Court for necessary redressal in accordance with law, if earlier bail order is not cancelled, and it is in force.

10. In the light of the above facts, permission is accorded to withdraw the appeal. The appellant is at liberty to approach the Special Court for necessary redressal in accordance with law, if earlier bail order is not yet cancelled and same in force.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal