IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .-PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6547 OF 2025 Between : 1. Nellore Siva Prasad, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 55 years, Agriculturist, Ex. ZPTC Member, R/o. BC Colony, Pynapuram village, Muthukur Mandal, SPSR NeIIore Dist+idt`r.(A6) 2. Ragala Venkateswarlu, s/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged about 58 years, Agriculturist, Ex.President :J`6f Krishnapatnam village, Kr,-shnapatnam vl'Ilage, Muthukuru mandal:JSPSR NeIIore DI-Str,'Ct.(A7) ...PetitI-OnerS/Accused No. A6 and A7 • AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep-. '`by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under section 482 of BNSS, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the gr6urid-s filed I-n support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased+td`enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.A6 & A7 on bail in the event of his a+fe;I in cr.No.167/2O25 on the file of Muthukur Police Station, dated o7.06.2025 ulnder Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471, 120(b),1091506(2), 386 r/w 34 lPC. The petitI-On coming On for hearing, upon perusing the petI-lion and the grounds filed Ion Support there`Of and upon healring the arguments Of Sri O.Manohar Reddy, Senior Counsel for sri c.subodh, Advocate for the Petitioners and of public prosecutor for Respondent, the court made the following THE HONOURABLE DR`'JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6547/2025 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity tthe BNSS') by the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.167 of 2025 of Muttukur Police Station,.Sri Potti Sriramulu Nell.ore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471,12O(B),109, 506(2), 386 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for,short lthe lPC'). 2. Facts, in brief, of the case of the prosecution are that the de-facto complainant is the owner of F.S. transport. Accused No.1, who was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly, was involved in all the illegal act'lvities by abusing his official position. With strong support of Accused No.,1, Accused Nos.2 to 9 planned to cheat the container transporters with an intention tO wrongful ga®ln and started three associations in the month of August, 2021 and maintained offices in the vacant place of Nadavala Sekhar. They increased transport charges with their own interest and issued orders to the owners of the containers. ln cont®lnuation of this practice, on ll.04.2022, they issued orders to pay the increased charges on the name of KCPT Transport Associat'lon. Accused Nos.2 to 9 cheated and collected huge amount from the owners and issued fake bills and extorted amount. from Other transport owners. while the drivers refused to pay the charges, the accused threatened them with dire consequences. They started illegal business and collapsed the Dr.YLRl ` Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 system with an intention to gain huge money and degrade the honor of Krishnapatnam port. Hence, the case was registered. 3. He`ard learned counsel for the petitI-OnerS and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. perused the record. 4.I Sri O. Manohar R'eddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submI-tS that the petl-tioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely impll-cated in this case. The petitI-OnerS WOuld abide by any condition to be imposed by this court. He further submitted that petitioner No.1/Accused No.6 is not partner of the fl®rm and he is not a member of any association or society his daughter is a major and partner of the firm. petitioner No.2/Accused No.7 is also not a member w,-th effect from 26.09.2022 as he quit the firm. ThI'S Court was pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to Accused No.2 on the ground that he is also not the mem`ber of the partnership firm. There is a|delay of more than two and half years in lodging the report. A dispute in between the de-facto complainant and the a6cused l's civ,'l in nature. lt has to be sorted out before the competent civil court designated under the societies Act, 1860 (for short tthe ActJ). The dI'SPu{e iS not PertaI-nI-ng tO Public Sector undertaking, but it is relating to a private sector undertaking, where the allegation is that only lesser amounts were paid, it was not the case of the de- facto complainant that no amounts at all were paid. 5. Per coHfra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant public pros6cutor, opposed in grarTting Of bail stating that the petitioners have /I Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 has been suffering from severe heart elements as per the discharge summary submitted by him issued by vijaya Medical & Educational Trust. The petitioner No.1/Accused No.6 underwent surgery and four stentS Were inserted tO his heart arteries. 8. Indeed, as seen from the record Produced by the learned Assistant public prosecutor in the reconstitution of partnership deed dated 25.08.2022, the daughter and son of the petitioner No.-1/A-6, by name N. Shivajyothi and N. Mokshagna were included in the partnership firm by name M/s. Krishnapatnam Logistics. 9. Further, as per the record, petitioner No.2/Accused No.7 ceased to be a member of the firm with effect from 26.09.2022: It also appears that there are disputes between two associations namely, the Krishnapatnam Transport Association and the Krishnapatnam Container Transport Owners Association, the latter be-lng the older of the two. Three members of the Krishnapatham Transport Association were allegedly inducted into the Krishnapatnam Container Transport Owners Association. The alleged transactions took place between the years 2021 and 2023. Even according to the prosecution, the incident originated in the year 2021. The FIR was lodged on 07.06.2025. The main accused/Accused No.1 was granted regular bail by' the learned lV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Nellore, in Criminal Miscellaneous petition No.927 of 2025, in Cr-lme No.167 of 2025 of Muthukuru Police Station, on 10.07.2025. =ii= -\ r I.==|L _ \ Dr_YLR, J CrI.P.No.6547 of 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 10. The objective of the two aforementioned Associations, as per Clause 7(3) of the Memorandum of Association, is to assist their members in securing maximum rates for their transport services. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and other accused established an unauthorized check post, which was not sanctioned by the' Government or the T`ranspoH Authorities. ll. lt is alleged that in the year 2021, when trailers were sent to transport inaterials from Krishnapatnam Port to various destinations, the freight charges were transferred by the companies to the account of Krishnapatnam Logistics at lCICI Bank. From there, after deducting their commission, the accused paid the remaining freight charges to the trailer owners. However, they are said to have issued fake bills to conceal the actual deductions. Through this method, the petitioner and other accused allegedly earned around Rs. 3,00,000/-from the trailer owners who used their transport services. when the de-facto complainant requested the bills to present th-em to the trailer owners, the accused and others allegedly threatened him with dire consequences. Based on his report, a case in Crime No.167 of 2025 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471,120(B),109, 506(2), and 386 read with Section 34 of the lPC. 12. As observed, although the alleged incidents occurred over two years ago, neither the de-facto complainant nor any other aggrieved party reported the matter to the police at the relevant time. The core allegation is that the petitioners and other accused extorted freight charges from lorry owners and i-`-`~.`.-€€=.,-.,'' Dr.YLRI . Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025 Dated 23.07.2025 misappropriated the amounts. There is a delay of more than two years in lodging the FIR. The explanation given for this delay is that the petitI-Oner and other accused were in politically influential positions at the time, due to which the de-facto complainant and other victims were hesitant to approach the police- 13. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon]ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, at para Nos.27, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53 (iv) it is held as lJnder: ll27. Io some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a priT.a.faPie Case Of POIitical bias or mala tides but that by itself is not suff!ci?n.i to grant . a_ntieipatpry bail overlooking the othalr prim'a facie materi9Is o_n record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of:the relevant c?nsiqprations whjlp considering the plea of antidipatory bail. The courts sh,oulq lfeep one tPirg i.n rind,_ more Particularly, while c6nsidering the plea of,enficipatory Peil that when two groups of rival political parties -are a{ war which rr!ay !ltima!el.y leed fo lit-IgatiOnS, more Particularly, criminal PrOSPCu{iPnS there iS bound tO be some element of political bias-br vendetta ipvo!yed in the same. However, political vendetta -by itself is not sufficii;i for the. gr9nt Pf_an_tiCiPatOry bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record consfit.uting a.prim_a facie ease as alleged by the State. lt is only when the court. is cpnvinc_ed more than prima facie that the allegations ire frivolous en.d baselpss, that tPe court may bring into the element of political vendetta i:i_?, CTO,fSig=r?I.iPn.fo,I the Purpose qf C_OPSidering the pI6a of anticipatory be.il..,TPe _frivolity .in the entire case that the court may-look into shduld ale attributed to political bias or vendetta. 45. , Ho.wpver: .the _aforesaid observations cannot be singled out and constr_ued devoid of its context. .While it is permissible for-the courts to examine the statements recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for the PurP_OSe Pf ascertaining Whcther a Prima-faCie Case has been made out agaipst the. aecus9d and the nature Or gravity Of the allegations, the same applies pnly insofar as such police statements are .of fritness-es and not accused persons. 4P. , . PotP..Indrpsh KuTar (fuPra) a_nP Salim Khan (supra) have held that. in d_eci_fling the question of grant of bail, it .is the sta{ewien{s of witn=;i Y.n.der_Sectipn _1_61_ of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhere iI-i;S i_Pis_::_o_uft_ LP_eldJ t^hJat ,e.yen _the_ _POliCe ?ta.tem.ents of the accused pers-din u~n_!s: _sle_Cli|p_:_1_P_1 _of_ i_h_3 Cr P..C...must also be looked into at the :tage-of grant of anticipatory br regular bail. 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 '-.- ._rz€ 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025 I-, '= Dated 23.07_2025 47. This is because a statementofan accused undersection 161 of the Cr..,P.C sta_nP? on a different footing from a police statement of any ordinary w_itn_es_s_ Statements of an accused person under section 1-61 of tr;e Cr.P_.C. by virtue of ordinarily being in the form of either an adm-ISSiOn Or a c?rfession cappo.i be looked into qua another co-accused, as to say o^tPery_ise y9u_ld _be tO ignore the SubStant-IVe Provisions Of Section(S) 1i, 21, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and the well settled cannons of`Iiw ;f evidence. However, the aforesaid does not apply, where the-s;at6m-ent -of an ac.cu.se_q under. Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is exculpatory in nature, which ` we shall discuss later. 5_0. ,. Eypr Where_ th_e police statement of an accused person under Sectipn !61 pf the Cr.P.C is neither an admission nor a confdssion, i.e., it is excul_patory in nature and not inculpatory, such statements can be looked into by tPe courts only for the limited purbose of culling out the stance of the accused_person qua the allegations. An exculpatory police statement of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C which at the same time impI.icatps anothe_r co- accused, cannot be relied upon, merely because such sfateprpnt.i_s not hit by the safeguards and rigours that apply in respect of inculpatory statements in the form of an admissidnS or confessions under the Evidence Act. The fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence is that a statement of one accused person cannot be used against.another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid general _prin_ciple -IS inCulpatory confessions, where the accused person in his ?pnfessiorial statement not only admits his own guilt but also ;mplicates anot.her p9-accused. The rationale behind this- limited exceition as explained_ !n. Bhuboni Sahu (supra), is that an admission by an-accused Pe.rSPn of his OW_n guilt affords some sort of credibility or sandtion in support o.f the truth of his confession against others is-well as himself: An exculpatpry statement is an affront to the afoI:eSaid Principle. Thus, an e_xcLIIpatory statement of an accused person under section 161 of the 9r.P.P. can o_nly be looked into for the limited purpose of either culling out i.fie stance c!f _t_h_p accused person qua the allegations or for contradicting the accused, if the accused chooses to be examined as a witness in tem;s of S.pc_lion__315 of the Cr.P.C. However, such exculpatory statement insofar as it implicates another co-.accused person can in ncj manner be relied uppn by the courts as against such co-accused as such statements by their nptu.re cann_ot be tested by cross-examination if such accused berson decI.ices to be a witness in the trial in terms of Section 315 of the 6r.p.c., a_n_d beca_use such exculpatory statement has no credibility. 5?.. . _ ._ From the above exposition of law, the following einerges: (iy) Vyhere such police statement of dn accused is. c6nfessi-onal statement, tPe rigpur pf Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A co_nfes_sional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is irot hit b_y Spctipn(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Sectipn(s) ?6, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. ln other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form -of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoeve'r clan be placpd on _such sldtements either at the stage of bail or during trial. since s_uch._ copt_essipnal statements are rend`ered inadmissible by virtue of Sect_i_on 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of section 30 wo'uld be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an ` accused to implicite another 6o-aiiuSidr:' '.a _ | Dr.YLRl ` Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025 Dated.23.07_2025 14. Having seen the entire material on record, Accused No.3 gave an incriminating statement not only against him but also against the present petitioners who are shown as Accused Nos.6 and 7. Albeit political bias or ma[afides by itself would not suffice to grant anticipatory bail by overlooking other pr,-ma fac,-e material on record, having seen the entire material on record, there`is a delay of more than two and half years in approaching the police for registration of a crime. Indeed, there is a dispute in between two societies.. They had alternative better remedy under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. After grievance, the contention of the complainant is expected though he could not venture to lodge a report with the police, he could have approached a competent Principal District Judge who is the designating Court for sorting out the issues of societies und.er Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Even as per the judgment of the HonJble Apex Court in P. Kr,-shna Mohan Eec/c/y st,pro, politidal bias is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. On a careful perusal of the entire case dairy, as of nowr except the confession of co-accused/Accused No.3, there is no substantial material available, rather established by the invest-lgating officer against the petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7. 15. The Hon'bleApex Court in P. Kr,-shna Mohan Rec'dysupra, held that a confessional statement of co-accused per se inadmissible and no relevance -.. .--...-' whatsoever can be placed on such statement at the stage of bail or through 9 Dr.YLRI J CrI.P.No.6547 of 2025 Dated 23.07_2025 bail inasmuch as such confession statements are rendered by Virtue Of section 25 of -the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (for short tthe Act').The provision of Section 30 of [the Act' would be of no avail, and no reliance Can be placed on such a statement as a cause of action to implicate another co-acc`used. Further, this Court in CrI.P.No.6412 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025 granted pre- arrest bail to the Accused No.2 on certain Stringent conditions. c.---I.. I --...---..,. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged role placed by the petitioners, the nature of allegations levelled against them, this court deems -lt fit to grant prerarrest bail to the petitioners, however, with following stringent conditions: a) In the event of arrest of the petitioners/A-6,and A-7, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal 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 arresting police officials; b) The petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; c) The petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall appear before the station House Officer conce+ned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge stleet. e) The petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall not leave the district limits without the express perrTiiSSiOn from the Station- House Officer concerned. EZ 10 Dr.YLR' Crl.P.No.6547 of 202s Dated 23.07.2025 f) The petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall surrender their passporfJ I-f any, tO the investigating Officer. lf they Claim that they do not have a` passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _` 3|rl./i a. PR-.QS-A.DA R,a,,.(3 _ __ .,_i--,.--]nTEa.-I.-` D //TRUE COPY// ' B ;fi±`3€3!_3TANT R i sTFi..§'E? To, .sB;:.CT_T!Oi`J. `~J FI i Ef, g.R 1. The Station House Offl'ce[,I.Muthukur Police Station, SrI' Potti Sriramulu i Nellore District. 2. One CC to Sri C.SubodhL.Adv;Gate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs toPUBLIC-PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.[OUT] 4. One spare copy. PSD HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:23/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6547 of 2025 ALLOWED