APHC010275592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI it TUESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5683 OF 2025 Between: Muppa Suresh Babu, S/o. Subbarao, aged 43 years, Occ; Business, R/o. Meenakshi Trident Towers, A Block, 903, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Petitioner/Accused No.7 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Amaravati 2. Muppavarapu Suchithra, W/o. Late Mupparapu Veeraiah Chowdary, Aged about 43 years, R/o. Ammanabrolu Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasham Dist. [Respondent No.2 Is impleaded as per the Court order dated 08.07.2025 in IA.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.5683 of 2025.] ...Respondents Petition under Section 482-1 of BNSS, 2023, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner/A-7 on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.249/2025, Dated 22.04.2025, on the file of the Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Komara Prudhvi Raj, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri K.S.Murthy Associates. The Court made the following order: 1 ^4 APHC010275592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5683/2025 Between: 1.MUPPA SURESH BABU, S/0. SUBBARAO, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. MEENAKSHI TRIDENT TOWERS A BLOCK, 903, GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ONGOLE TALUK POLICE STATION ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI 2.MUPPAVARAPU SUCHITHRA, W/0. LATE MUPPARAPU VEERAIAH CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/0. AMMANABROLU VILLAGE, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANUAL, PRAKASHAM DIST. RESPONDENT N0.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 IN I.A.N0.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.N0.5683 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to release the Petitioner/A-7 on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.249/2025, Dt.22- 04-2025 on the file of the Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, AP and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioner to come on record as respondentNo.2 in the above case to/and assist the prosecution of Public Prosecutor in Crl.P.No.5683 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.KOMARAPRUDHVI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A.7 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.249/2025 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District. 1. A case has been registered against the petitioner / A.7 and others for the offence punishable under Sections 331(5), 103(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 22.04.2025 at 7:30 P.M., the deceased, along with Narayana Rao and Niranjan, was at the office reviewing liquor shop accounts when four unidentified individuals entered carrying a bag. When the de facto complainant questioned them, they immediately pulled out knives and pushed him aside and attacked the deceased with knives and hacked him indiscriminately. When the complainant tried to stop the accused, the accused put the knife to his throat and threatened to kill him. After confirming that Veeraiah (the deceased) had died, the accused fled the scene in their vehicles toward Padma Towers. Ashok, the computer operator who witnessed the incident, rushed to the deceased and, after the accused left, called the driver. The deceased was then shifted to Venkata Ramana Nursing 3. 3 Home, Ongole, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. Based on the complaint, the present crime was registered against four unknown persons. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-10, and A-11 at 12:00 P.M. on 14.05.2025, and A-6, A-8, and A-9 at 4:00 P.M. the same day. All were produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2025. The remand report revealed that A-1, A-6, A-7, and A-8 bore a grudge against the deceased, and that A-1 had met A-6 and A-7 in Ammanbrolu Village to plan the murder. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as A-7, though no name is assigned to A-7 in the remand report. There is no evidence of his involvement, and the allegation appears politically motivated. He was not present at the scene, has no criminal antecedents, and learned of his alleged role only through media reports. All material witnesses have been examined, and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the trial court. 4. Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is not completed. 5. On behalf of the 2"^^ Respondent / De facto complainant, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel submitted arguments and opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel on either side. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. 7. 4 In Mahipal V. Rajesh^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, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime. 8. In Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another^ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that; “Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty”. 9. In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answers upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict”. 10. In Jai Prakash Singh V. The State of Bihar & Another"^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 18. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, and further, while granting such relief, the Court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. 20. The High Court erred in not considering the case in correct perspective and allowed the said applications on the grounds that in the FIR some old disputes had been referred to and the accused had fair antecedents 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner, who has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. It is contended that, even as per the complaint and the remand report, the petitioner was not present at the scene of the incident, and has been falsely implicated by the police under the influence of local political pressure. The remand report discloses that A.1, A.6, A.7, and A.8 12. (2020) 2 see 118 ^ 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 ^ (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565 "2012 0AIR(SC) 1676 5 bore a grudge and had developed enmity against the deceased. In support of its case, the prosecution has placed reliance on statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly those of LW.7, LW.8, LW.10, LW.11, LW.16, and LW.26 to LW.30, to demonstrate the existence of political and personal differences between the petitioner and the deceased. It is settled law that statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. are to be looked into by the Court in deciding the question of grant of bail, in Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that "statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence". Similarly, in Salim Khan v. Sanjai Singh^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court is duty-bound to consider all the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., examine the gravity of the offence and also examine the question of possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and possibility of getting the attendance of the accused during trial and then would be entitled to grant bail to an accused. Thus, the material placed on record prima facie establishes the existence of ongoing political/perso nal differences between the petitioner and the deceased. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy V. The State of Andhra Pradesh^, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides, but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail, overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias, if any, is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail, that when two groups of rival political parties are at war, which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions, there Is bound to be some 14. ®2022 SCCOnLine SC 2411 ® (2002) 9 see 670 " MANU/SC/0737/2025 6 element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record, constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the Court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the Court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the Court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. In Ramveer Upadhyay and Ors. V. State of U.P. and Ors.®, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 30. The fact that the complaint may have been Initiated by reason of political vendetta Is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, as observed by Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0206/1986. It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. Though the view of Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) the minority view, there was no difference of opinion with regard to this finding. To quote Krishna Iyer, J., in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh MANU/SC/0433/1979, "if the use of power is of fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice Is not legicidal." 15. was The prosecution has placed reliance on the alleged confessional statement said to have been given by A.1. According to the prosecution, after the commission of the offence, while fleeing the scene, A.3 and A.4 made separate WhatsApp calls to A.1 and informed him about the execution of the murder. In turn, A.1 is said to have made a WhatsApp call to A.6, conveyed the same information, and instructed A.6 to communicate it further to A.7 and A.8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy (supra), in support of the contention that a confessional statement made by a co-accused cannot be relied upon at the stage of considering anticipatory or regular bail. Given the 16. MANU/SC/0524/2022 7 legal position laid down in the said decision, this Court is not inclined to place significant reliance on the alleged confessional statement of A.1. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of A.1 and A.7, which indicate that approximately 30 calls were exchanged between them during the period from 13.07.2024 to 06.02.2025. In addition, the prosecution has submitted certain documents to establish that the petitioner was a Director of Vaidik Infra Projects Private Limited, and that A.7’s associate, one Kadapa Gowtham, effected two payments of ?50,000/- and ?49,000/- respectively to A.1 on 24.01.2025. 17. The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative at this stage of the investigation. It is submitted that such interrogation is necessary not merely to confront the petitioner with the financial records already collected by the investigating agency, but more importantly, to ascertain the nature, source, and purpose of the monetary transactions allegedly linked to the commission of the offence. 18. The prosecution refers specifically to the payments of ?50,000/- and ?49,000/- purportedly made by Kadapa Gowtham, an alleged associate of A.7, to A.1, and contends that the petitioner’s role—as the Director of Vaidik Infra Projects Private Limited—needs to be thoroughly examined to determine whether these payments were part of a legitimate commercial transaction or had any nexus with the offence in question. 19. In addition, the learned Public Prosecutor emphasizes the importance of verifying the contents, context, and frequency of the WhatsApp communications allegedly exchanged between the petitioner and the co accused persons, which the prosecution believes may throw light on the petitioner's involvement, if any, in the broader conspiracy. It is argued that such digital evidence, including chat histories, call logs, and metadata, may not be accessible or verifiable without custodial interrogation, particularly if the petitioner has devices or accounts that have not yet been recovered or 20. 8 subjected to forensic analysis. Therefore, the prosecution maintains that denial of custodial interrogation at this juncture may hamper the investigation and prevent the uncovering of crucial evidence relevant to establishing the extent and nature of the petitioner's alleged involvement. Regarding the prosecution's case, the investigation remains incomplete. The anticipatory bail for the petitioner may adversely impact the ongoing investigation. There is a possibility of threats to the witnesses, and a prima facie case involving the petitioner in a severe case exists. The nature of the accusations is grave. The investigation agency has not been able to interrogate the Accused/Petitioner. In State represented by the C.B.I. V. Anil Sharma^, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case like this interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting useful informations. 21. 22. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the police are not able to capture the petitioner even after a lapse of considerable time. It is also not the petitioner's case that he cooperated with the investigation. The investigation in this case has not been completed. The release of the petitioner may adversely affect the investigation process. There is every possibility of threatening the witnesses as apprehended by the prosecution. To bring out all material information relating to the offence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. 24. While this Court is conscious of the fundamental importance of an individual’s liberty, it must also, when considering an anticipatory bail application, take into account the seriousness of the accusations and the relevant facts bearing on the case. This is especially so where the allegations are not prima facie false, frivolous, or vexatious, but are supported by 23. 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 268 w 9 adequate material on record that enables the Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion regarding the involvement of the accused. Considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the gravity of the offence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is required in this case for a proper and just investigation of this case. It is the settled principle of law that the power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances, and thus, no such circumstances have been made out in this case. 25. After evaluating the facts of the case, the gravity of the allegations, the materials gathered, and the materials to be collected in the course of the investigation, it is not desirable to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the observations made in the present case are only for adjudicating the present bail application. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. 26. 27. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole Prakasam District. One CC to Sri Komara Prudhvi Raj, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K.S.Murthy Associates, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED: 15/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 5683 OF 2025 DISMISSING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION