[3521] lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5567 OF 2025 Between : Olupalli Mohana Ranga Rao @ Ranga, S/o Thata Rao, aged about 47 years, Resident of lslampeta, Gannavaram (Village) & Mandal, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner/Accused Mos. AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Station House Officer, Gannavaram Poll-ce Station, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh. Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 / old Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal PetitI-On] the High Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned VIII Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Gannavaram, cancelling the bail, earlier granted to the Petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.1743 of 2024 in Crime No.42 of 2o24, against the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as Accused Nos. 9 and consequently restore the regular bail granted to the Petitioners vide order dated 03.12.2024. IANO: 2OF2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 / Old Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of impugned order dated o7.01.202-5 passed by the learned VIII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gannavaram, cancelling the bail, earlier granted to the Petitioner vide order dated o3.12.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.1743 of 2024 in Crime No.42 of 2024, against the petitioner herein, who is arrayed aS Accused Nos. 9, Pending dispos:I of CRLP 5567 of 2025, on the file of the High Court. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P SHASHI VARDHAN .Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent ito.1 and the Court made the following. THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y| LAKSHMANA RAO RIMINAL PETITI-ON No:5567 of 2025 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been fI-led under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity {the cr.p.c.,I), challenging the order dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1743 of 2024 in Cr.No.42/2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gum VIII Additional Judicial FI'rSt Class MagI'Strate, Gannavaram wherein the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner/Accused No.9 and also to other accused. 2. Learned Counsel for the petI'tiOner Submits that the Petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court-on the particular date because he was suffering from ill health. It I'S further submitted that merely because the petitiorler could not attend the learned Trial Court on one day is not a ground t6 cancel bail applI-CatI'On. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the I HonJble Apex Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryanal and Krishna Sharma Alias Krishna Kumar Sharma v. The State of West BengaI2. 4. Mr. Neelo{paI Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner faI'led tO attend before the learned Trial Court on a particular date. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly cancelled the bail. The orcler doesnJt suffer from any illegality or irregularity and urged to dismiss the CrimI|naI Petjtjon., r` `= Q_`~==*.=`2~_` 1 (1995) 1 SCC 349 2 MANU/SCOFV13897/2024 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Learned Assistant Public' Prosecutor further submits there was a specific condition imposed On the Petitioner while he was enlarged on baI'I by the learned Trial Court that he should attend on every Tuesday and Friday for 9O days or till the filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dolat Ram's case at para No.4 held as under: "`!_._P:I_elf_tiPn ,of P.ail in a pop-b.ailabl€ case at the initial stage and the c?,n.ceIIa!ipn pf Ppil so granted, have to be considered and dgalt--viiih--;n dF!ff.e:e^nt__bJa_S_iS_.,:_y9|r_ _c?Sent and.,oYPrwh9lPling ei_rCu_mStanCeS a;; ;;i-i-:s:iv f::^a^:,:?r~de.rL!ire~S}i.!g_,i_he, canceIIaf,io.fl of tPe. -bell, _ alreedy grante-d.-6-i;iri;r-:Iiy - s_P?aking, t`he gro.upds for cancellation of bail, broadly- (frlustra`tive an-i -;6t exPayst-Iye)_ are: _ipterference or .attempt to int-erfere wi-Itri the due-ci;-;;Si--;f edap.inistratipn of justice or evasion oi attempt to evade the due -i;drJ;ste -&f j!sfI!?f_ O,r. abu??.Of the C.OnCeS.Slop granted tO the accused in any in;;;6;.-Tis satisf??I.i.on o_f I_he court, on the basis of material placed on th6 record of iire p_o_s_s!9!l,i_t¥_?f _tlhp .?cpysed abscqrding is yet aiiother reason justifyirid ih;e cancpllat.ion_ of bail. However, bail once grdnted should not be 6anc6IIevd i-;--a T::^c.P=:^ilc_a!___m,p_!r_er__ yithoyf, cc!nsidering _ wpether any superve-;-i;6 circumstppces h9ye rendered it nO longer CdnduCiVe tO a fair'trial t6 allowiii;e ?_:3ysTeLd_i_0_ r3_I:€_i_n= _P!s frpedom by enjoying. th_e_ concession of bail during ih;e t!!IPI_.=J_hp?e principl?.s, -I! aPPePrS, yiri lost sight of by the High Codi-ifFI;;:It d_?:_i!,p!,I_a_,c,€nce.I. tPe Pail, already_ granted. The Hiofh Couirit iii=a;S--i-; -;S OLV_e,r!?_P_ked th? q.istiP.cti.O.n Pf the factors relevant far rejecting bdil in -a--n;-; bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of-bail alrea-dj -g-r;h{5-i.;I The Hon]ble Apex Court in Krishna Kumar Sharmals case at para No.5 held as under.I "_5:__H_?_ys.ver, y? finq fhat n]erely because the appellant did not appear Personally cpuld not have been a ground for iinceIIation bf bail.'Th6 pta_r:PTl?!e_rS for granf of bell and.cancellation of bail are totally different. I:rie bLa_iI_ sir_3_3dY g,r€nte,d ma_y bP_ Ce_hCelled, if it iS found that i-ir5 -;e;Sdi; -wi-o 'ri;s P,eep..grentpd _th_p benefit of bail has violated any of the ci,;-di{i6-rf;-ir-;i-s;±id the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tampdring with th; i;id5;i;.'" Admittedly the day on which the impugned order was passed happen to be a Tuesday. The period prescribed by the learned I - I as also not \ 4 expired. However, the petjtjoner was unable to attend before the learned Trial court on only one day and that too due to because of his ill health. The learned MagI'S{rate has not sought for the reason for non-appearance of the Petitioner on the given day. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal petitI'On is allowed, the order dated o7.01.2025 in CrI.M.PINo.1743 of 2024 in cr.No.42/2024 on the file of the learned Additional civil Judge (JunI|Or D[-vision) Gum VIII Additional Judicial Fir`st class Magistrate, Gannavaram I'S Set aSl'de wI'th a SPeC]'fiC dl-reC{iOn tO the Petitioner to' appear before the learned Trial court as and when required. Failure to attend before the learned Trial Court I'n the next date of hearI'ng, the learned Trial Court may proceed in accordance w]|th law. SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ., Ahdhra Prad6sh'. To, 1. The Additl'onal civil Judge (Junior Division) Gum vllI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gannavaram. gr 2. Th?|S{atio+n House OffI'Cer, Gannavaram police station, NTR District, + I ,_(. _.` ? €tJ\l + -one cc to SRI. P SHASHI VARDHAN Advocate [OPUC] Jr4 .+ 4*-:\l+ Trtyi o ccs {oJ PHbli; Prosecutor (AP) High Court of A.P., AmaravatI' [OtJTl. `: ::,,.. +,` 5. One sDare'[nnv /a HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:01/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5567 of 2025 ALLOWED