THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:7332 & 7297 of 2025 ORDER: The Crl.P.Nos.7332/2025 and 7297 of 2025 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as the Petitioners in the two petitions are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in one FIR i.e., Cr.No.103/2025 of V.Satram Police Station. 2. Provenance of the case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant alleged that Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 instigated and conspired together with the active aid of the other accused to commit the offences. Government Orders were issued to help the farmers under their ayucut to fertile their agriculture lands with mud in the tank on their own transport by paying a nominal fee of Rs.1/- to the government by producing the relevant records for permission. The accused hatched a plan to loot the valuable mud which is worth of Rs.25 crores, in about ten lakh cubic meters and committed theft of tank mud by using the names of the men of the accused by taking the passbooks of original farmers by threatening them and submitted the same to the authorities with the support of Accused No.1 and transported the mud to their real estate plots and illegally gained money. They also cheated the government by submitting the documents of the farmers and inserted the names of their men through illegal means. Accused No.1 in the capacity of MLA and Minister committed criminal breach of trust. Instead of paying Rs.231/- for commercial purposes, Accused No.1 paid only for Rs.1/- by 2 fabricating the documents. Based on the report of the de-facto complainant the Station House Officer, V Satram Police Station, SPSR Nellore registered FIR No.103/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 409, 465, 467, 471, 506 and 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) and 21(1), 21(4) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 (for brevity ‘the MMDR Act’). 3. Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Accused No.3 submitted that there was no evidence or valid proof that the accused No.3 indulged in commission of the alleged offence. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 was harassed pursuant to the change of the Government. There is a delay of more than two years in lodging the complaint. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 is innocent; he has not committed any offence; he is the sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. 4. Mr. Rupesh Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for Accused No.2 reiterated the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel. 5. Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the Petitioners, with the active aid of Accused No.1, dug mud in the tank bund unauthorizedly and caused loss of crores of rupees to the Government. Permission was sought for 2.2 lakh cubic tons, whereas excavation was done for 12 lakh cubic tons. There are direct eyewitnesses to the illegal activity of the Petitioners. Custodial interrogation is required for the Petitioners to know about their involvement in this case and the magnitude of 3 the loss caused to the government and hence granting pre-arrest bail at the nascent stage of investigation would not augur the investigation well. Hence urged to dismiss the Criminal Petitions. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” POINT:- 8. 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 and 53 (iv) it is held as under: “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 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. 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: (iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 4 such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, at Para No.48 it is held as under: “48. The Law Commission of India, in its 41st Report of 1969, noted that the necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly due to influential persons attempting to implicate their rivals in false cases, or disgracing them by getting them detained in jail. The Report further noted that apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems to be no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. The Report recommended that a provision be included for the direction to grant bail in such cases, and that this power vests in the High Courts and Courts of Session only....” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat3, at Para Nos.25, 25.1, 25.2, 25.3, 25.4, 25.5, 25.9, 25.10 it is held as under: 25. The principles which can be culled out, for the purposes of the instant case, can be stated as under: 25.1. The complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly examined, including the aspect whether the complainant has filed a false or frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant, and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant and the investigating officer is established, then action be taken against the investigating officer in accordance with law. 25.2. The gravity of charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases, the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the court. 25.3. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 3 (2016) 1 SCC 152 5 the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post- conviction stage. 25.4. There is no justification for reading into Section 438 CrPC the limitations mentioned in Section 437 CrPC. The plenitude of Section 438 must be given its full play. There is no requirement that the accused must make out a “special case” for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred by Section 438 CrPC to a dead letter. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may deem fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail. 25.5. The proper course of action on an application for anticipatory bail ought to be that after evaluating the averments and accusations available on the record if the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then an interim bail be granted and notice be issued to the Public Prosecutor. After hearing the Public Prosecutor, the court may either reject the anticipatory bail application or confirm the initial order of granting bail. The court would certainly be entitled to impose conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Public Prosecutor or the complainant would be at liberty to move the same court for cancellation or modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail at any time if liberty granted by the court is misused. The anticipatory bail granted by the court should ordinarily be continued till the trial of the case. 25.9. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of the anticipatory bail because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with legislative intention, the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 25.10. We shall also reproduce para 112 of the judgment in Siddharam Satlingappa case [(2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] , wherein the Court delineated the following factors and parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail: (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court 6 should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (i) The court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 11. As seen from the record, as per the G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 21.05.2018, private individuals can also remove the silt in large scale from the tanks/reservoirs, and transport the silt, and use the same for their private/commercial purposes with their own cost, without any burden on government’s exchequer. Later, vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 14.10.2019, amendment was effected to G.O.Ms.No.40 that any commercial use of silt would be severely punishable, including the seizing of conveyance of vehicle and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or ten times the cost of silt as per the current SSR, whichever is more. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.2026, dated 06.10.2022, further amendment was given to the main G.O. 12. The Accused No.3 is a contractor from a respectable Agricultural family and he is supporter of YSR Congress Party. Initially an FIR was registered in Cr.No.228/2021 against Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, T.Uday Kumar Reddy and Sridhar Reddy under Sections 427 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 21 of the MMDAR Act in V.Satram Police Station. The Accused No.2 is an agriculturist having fixed abode and landed properties in his name. 7 13. On 24.12.2023 the investigating officer submitted a proposal to refer the case as action dropped to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural. On 30.12.2023, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Nellore Rural issued proceedings vide C.No.662/Ref-SDO.N(R)/2023, dated 30.12.2023, to drop further action in the case. However, the investigating officer failed to serve notice to the complainant therein and file a final report before the learned Court concerned, seeking RCS proceedings. 14. On 25.01.2025, the Inspector of Police, V.Satram Police Station, received a complaint, in respect of the same transaction, from L.W.10/S.Ramesh, alleging illegal excavation and transportation of soil from Survepalli Reservoir and from Kantepalli and Venkatachalam tanks. Based on that, the Station House Officer, V Satram Police Station, submitted a proposal to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural, to reopen the case. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural, issued proceedings vide C.No.54/GL-SDO.N(R)/2025, dated 04.02.2025, and allowed further investigation in this case. 15. On 07.06.2025, Petitioner/Accused No.1, in Cr.No.228/2021, registered for the offences under Sections 427, 420, 120(B), 466, 468, 471 and 379 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 21(4) of ‘the MMDR Act.,’ and Section 4 of the Prevention of Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the PDPP Act’), was forwarded to the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore for judicial remand. However, the learned Magistrate refused to send 8 the Petitioner, who was accused No.1 in the above, to judicial remand as all the offences were punishable below seven years, and released him on bail. 16. It has to be pointed out that immediately, on the same day, i.e., on 07.06.2025, the de-facto complainant herein by name Valluru Ramesh Naidu, submitted a similar complaint which was registered as FIR in Cr.No.103/2025, more or less, in respect of the same transaction, before the Station House Officer, Venkatachala Satram Police Station, on the similar allegations. 17. Prima Facie, on a bare perusal of the averments of the FIR and the progress of the investigation conducted so far, applicability and attraction of Section 409 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in respect of the Petitioners is doubtful. Indeed, the Petitioners have a fixed abode and are permanent residents of Indupuru Village of Alluru Mandal. The possibility of fleeing away from the clutches of law would not arise. Therefore, the Petitioners may not abscond or otherwise misuse their liberty, if pre-arrest bail is granted to them. In that view of fact that on earlier occasion in respect of the same set of transactions the Sub- Divisional Police Officer gave permission to refer the case as civil nature. There seems to be no justification to require the petitioners first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest, if the petitioners are arrested. Further, the alleged incident occurred prior to 02.08.2023 i.e., more than one and half years ago. The delay is not plausibly explained. 18. To maintain a balance in between the two factors namely no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation and prevention of 9 harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the petitioners, this Court inclines to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners with the following stringent conditions. In view of the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, and their alleged exact role played in this case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3. 19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required, and fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer. iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on 10 every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not leave the limits of the State without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 25.07.2025 VTS