[3521] lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl #t*`&#!,¥<:¢J'1' I.\I `,`trqll7l' ,I-nirf FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 7332 & 7297 OF 2025 > CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7332 OF 2025: Between : Mandala Venkata Seshaiah, S/o Venkaiah Dodda Raju, aged 44 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Palem Doddaraju Palem, Venkatachalam, NeIIore. Petitioner/Accused No.2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. Respondents AND Petition under Section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Pe{ition! the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest Crime No. 103 / 2025 of V.Satram Police Station, SPSR Ne]lore District. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of tr_: I/ / Sri V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Advocate for the petI'tiOner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7297 OF 2025: Between : Allampati Niranjan Reddy, S/o. Dayakar Reddy, Aged about 47 years`; Contractor, R/o.Indupuru village, AIIuru MandaI, SPSR Nellore District. Petitioner/Accused No.A3 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi AND Respondent Petition under section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the i circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support`of the crI|minaI Petition, the High Court may be pleased {o enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.A3 on bail in the event of his arrest I-n Cr.No.103/2025 on the file of v. satram p.S under Sections 379, 409, 465, 467, 471,506,109 I/w. 34 I.P.C and See.21 (1), 21 (4) of MMDR Act. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds fI'led in Support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C SUBODH Advocate for the petI-tI'Oner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) foi the Respondent and the court made the following. t| ggBERTr- ORDER: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:7332 & 7297 of 2025 The CrI,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-racfo 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 Minl'ster committed criminal breach of trust. Instead of paying Rs.231/-for commercial purposes, Accused No.1 paid only for Rs.1/- by fabricating the documents. -- i Based on the report of the de-faofo complainant the station House Officer, V Satram Police StatI'On, 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 brevI'ty fthe I.P.C.,I) and 21 (1 ), 21 (4) of Mines and MI'nerals Development and Regulatl'on Act,1957 (for brevity fthe MMDR Act]). 3. Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing forAccused No.3 submitted that there was no evidence or valid proof that the accused No.3 I'ndulged in commI'SSiOn 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,I he is the sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready {o abI-de by any COnditI'OnS`tO be imposed by this Court and urged to grant pre-arrest bail {o the PetitI-Oner. 4. Mr. Rupesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel forAccused No.2 reiterated the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel. 5. Mr. NeelotpaI Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the Petitioners, with the actI'Ve aid Of Accused No.1, dug mud in the tank bund unauthorI-Zedly and caused loss of crores of rupees to the Government. permission was sought for 2.2 Iakh 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 requI'red for the Petitioners to know about their involvement in this case and the magnI-tude Of 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 theargumentS advanced bythe 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:- 8I ln 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: Lt27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala tides 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 coLJrtS 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 litiqations, more particLllarlV, Criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta bv itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatOry bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of DOlitiCal vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting __anrjm_a facie case as alleged bv the State. It is onl when the court is convinced more than rima 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 anticipatorv 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. ln 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 suf;h confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 I- trh^€:_Ehv£d^e_a_c_e 45t__f±± ,rovision .of Se9tiOn 30 would be of no avail and no reliance can be another laced on such C_9~aCCuSed.1' confessional of an a9CuSed tO The Hon'ble Apex Court in sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, at Para No.48 I-I iS held as under: "n4^8:^TP±lrissio,p_ f2f India. in_ its_ 41 st Re off of 1969 noted that the necessit attem ranti n detained in offence 'ls not likel bail arises tfty9ir rivals in mainl false cases The Report further noted to abscond due to or dis i_nfl u entiaI them b that apart from false erSOnS l^,I.ar^ +h^r^ ^.A-_===_::i,'_`=_::'` T'`:I-I. ":L.=u Ll_'aL aI|a'L I'uI'l laISe Cases, w¥!££¥iP±= _alrp, r? aso n a£!s±±e!±J1£!S±9rh_9u±jPglbi±ii::i;iiiiii:iiiiiii:i::i otheIWiSe misuse tth£ere seems remain in to be no f_o_r some da r_9COmmended Cases o9PL|....,, that a a_r!d that this examined includin rovision be ower vests the as tlis libert him first s_ and then iulfCIuded for in the while on s_ubmit to bail. The direction to Courts and custod rant bail Courts of in such Session 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.. 2.5:nThh^e p+r!r^cirl_e^s.y_h!c_p. can be culled out, for the purposes of the instant case, can be stated as under: 2_::_1_.__:TI±±_ POTD.I.aint..filed again?I_ the aQ±1±S9±±S|9±9uCIhlv eegt whether the The lainant has filed a false or court should also examine wannerdtPhe: t^h^e£ni,s_ :a_a_y_!a_I.i.ly|d,jspy,te b,ety?? p.the.e?fused a nd th e co; iiir;:;i , all,d_ _th_3_ lc_Pm,plain?.nt mys.t .be elearly told that if the complai-n-i-i: -fd;;-d'';;I;6 f,a_I.:p €:rL,f_rjVOIous, then?tript actior will be taken against hi:in -Sic;;i:=';c;;tuh I :%t-^lLf,!!Le_CalOn T!v_a~nc? _bl?_tweP a tP e,com pl ai n.a nt vand the i;;iii-edt'i ;i'ofii;: ;'i± e^s^t:^b!als_h_e_d: __i_P|pp_ action be taken -against the inves{iii=ii-;i-aoff;;;;r' 'i-n accordance with law. 2r5:::ahhe^gnrJa^Vffy ODf^C,h_a_rgS_3~n_d|thl3_ Pxact r?I.e of tP_3 accused must be Properly c_o_T_P_r:!erP.pq. ,Befor.e prre?I, the arresting officer must r;;;r6-tri;;r;:I'iJd r^:va^s^onn+:^y^!i:P^h^€v+eL !e_d_ _tP_i_h_e_ err,e.s.i of th-e .acp.used in the ;aSe--ira;I-I-n e.x^c+ehp^t!:.:La:I, ^CaJS_e_::,_t! P:£_a:,P_n S P.Puld Pe rpcorqpd im m edi atel; iir:r-trfi;=Jr;e':i , sip _th_3_i_y_hl!le de,Sling with i.he Pail application, the remarks an'd -ob-:;ri-at;a-;;:f t^hp ^arr,p?Iipg office.r ca_n also be prdperly evaluated by tit; c;L;ir. 2^5,c_3,-,.l!+i^s :Lm_P|e_r~aLt!V3lflPr the cou_fas to..Care.f.ully and viith -;itiiJIous precision e_v_alL!~a_teL i_h_P fast,: of the..cPSe. The qiscretioir to grant bail -ii-;:i-ii :i:strJ:€d oc+n£ :_he.es~ ±fe_3tfhteh ecoauFrff IIISa ±gfe.th±tCeOr#a:ol daenrde:hVel ef#tthS a£ft#hee a iafls;eJ#;i i;s=vs€f : ind the the fact and he is full erati n with the 2(2020)5SCC 1 3(2016)1 SCC152 `.( r for the entirre le do not communit A rresfEsl9Jn4Dys9fl9 y S C9 n Se±£u±SP±£S±9±J2P!l±±e±+£=±S±:±==:P:--±:±±+S5+ and at times_ fhe entire make distinctio_n_ between arrest at _f± re-conv iction c# justlfICatIO_n f_O[ re_adlng. Int.P SectlrOr _4_3.8_ Pr^P.€ t±p!!mLI!a!?,n^Sn L%6;ti;;iJ i; se6tion 437 CrPC. The. pI.e.pitude of Spctio_nl 4_3_3._m_u.SLt _b£_9i^v^e::I I l':;siae:sguieu£op:#gsari:iheeTekh:;nair5xi€i§sTc:n£co£P:3a£o€#n3mFoefe¥§.£:rs;££f;:h §^eeance€:;D#e#;:r£n4aCd!:8£Qt#5e±nd#i!ffinoe#s v#f' ;;;I;5:e-n'ii.a Fie is' wiIIihg to _ submit. tO re?i.reinf: and Sop_d_i_i.io_P_s_3n,:+hi+s^ vf;e'g'b'irf:-ii the acceptance of conditions. w.h.i.ch the, cpyrf T_a_I, P5e_TI_f!t~t~OA 'i'X;;;;;,I i; |c;nsiderati-on of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail. v£5ig'ihe proper course of ap+ion on an?pplicetion for?.ntiC_iP_at?¥_Lb,a_il _O_ug+Lht^ F:~vb~eih-a{--a-f{er evaluating the avermentS Pnq aC?uSPfjons av9'!lla_b_!S_ oLn_::hLe_ LrVe;iri--if the court is ~InCIiF;ed to gran_i en_tic4patory Pail t^h,Pn PP _iTt_e_!iIT _b£i.I,Lb,?A 'irv:;i-ei i;a pptice be ,issu ed I?i ,t!h_? P_u..9l!: ELr?SSS+:t^::-_£^ftne,r hh:;:r!nngn:treatFnunbl inc, gF;g:iiL;tor, the COurf may either reje_ctl.he anti?iPatO,ry ball .€ppl,i_c_at_i?I:uprJ 'c:;rff;r-rf i-h6 initial order oi granting ir_ail. I:h.e eourt .w9.ulg, cert_ai,r,I,y bnp_e_n_tit.I€_d_ vtvo' 'iin'poSe conditions for fife grept of a,nticipatoLry_b_all.__Ih_e_.FJu9!3 ^P^rno^s^e,:^u+i;:: L:r'iir5-idrm-plainant would be -€t lib9rfy tO mPve. th,e san:.e CO.!if,_f?r:a_a_C_e_I+I_at!oL: v:r`;;isai-irihg the conditions of ant_ic.ipa!ory pail..at any, tiTP if lip?rty _?:3nt_eLd_P¥J {h:I-;;i;ri is-misused. The anticip9tOry bail granted by the COurf Should ordinarily be continued i-Ill the trial _of I.Pe pap?. v£i.'d:ir6 i-a-flexible guidelines Or Straitjacket fPrTula Gen be proviPe! fPl:_?_rSn~t| I;r-;6;;:;i -;;the a;ticipatory bail beiause all cirCumSt.anCPs,anq.sit_u_3t_i?rsL _Pf vf:;;;:-i=in-noft be clea;Iy vi:ualised fer the grant C)r refu,Sal pf ?pfj2_i_P:9t_OLT_P£!-: I lu;u;in-s-on'=;ae with legislative intention, the 9r9nt Or r.efuSal of,anti?ipp_i?ry bail ':rfdr;id necessarily ddpend on the facts and _CirC_uTStarCPs of ?aPh ^C€,:€_. uZgid. -vie shall 'alsb reproduce pare I 1_2 of. i_hsJu,d_gTETt,Tin S,id_d_P?_r?,T~ -S={li-;g-iipa case [(20! 1 _i 1 _SC9 6P4 : (20,ll ) 1 SC,P _(_Cl[:)_L51^±]_,JY_heLr_eif^f,h^en -a;;'ir'rfi6iineated the following factors and_ param.et?.rs that need to be taken ;;to consideration while dealing with anticipatOry. Pail: ti:irfe e r o9ff9flan -ffie the accus.atiors have b.pen ,Pad_e_ PPl__y with the object of injuring or \hdmiliating the applicant by arresting__him ?r Per; '(fu)"I';ii';to;i-6ra'n't of antidpatory bail p_a_rticularly in cases of large magnitude `iffeciing a very large number Of People; u(i; i;ir ;;6 i ri; m_uit eval y ate tP i Pnti r?_a_v_Pi.I 99I£ _T^a:e^r:aAl £hg^ai^nvS: !! ern:aCC^ufS+ehda \vg3iv' |;a-r:iuli;. The cou_ri must alsp cI?erl,y ,:_o_m_P_r=h_e_nLd :i_hg~e_::a^C^±+:OrdI=ugfht+hheh y;::u-i:i i-n the case. The cases in which_ thP a.C_C^u^S?.d iS imPliPeteIP, r!!t._h_:Jh=_ urfJ;-df-s66{;6hs 34 and 149 of tP.e Pe.hal Co_d_ei 1 _8P.O~~t_h,:_c~2..u_E S_h3Lu!d^C^O_nhs_i?.er. 'jfi'trh -€v-e;-dr6ater care and caution_, because over implication in the cases iS a matter of common knowledge and concern; ' ( riu)-fihiI 6 -ionside ri pg th.e p.Fayer for g[_an! _of_e_a:i.i.cIP~a^to^P!^P,3!I ,Lan b^a^I,:.n^crde +h^afSataO \;6 'si;;-;k-iretween twio fa6to;s, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, T _ i:iurm:I;adt.I:unll ainndVFISnf;I:<aft:lf:an; Haan+dant+f^e:e^,S+hLO_ul_d_ _P3_ Prevention of h arassment , h,:\ m+!a^tip_n. €|ng ,_u_nj ifStified pptention -of-twi;ire;uvserJ; (#-ItTnheesscooru:nsnhrQ:hu!dn QCiOnnnS!:P: rr^e^3stoS;a;jl-e_ :iiSn p-ion Of tam pering of the r!i\tnEer:`:A::I, P?._Pr?P_e_nsiop of th.real to tiri-iofmr:iJ;:;t`; tip)leF#ev:!'Itayf :nenp:,onsaencouQt:O+nh aS+h.Ohu!] ijj~aj~-s-jSu;;;.:jI'dereq a_nd it -IS Only the e:fe gael rtaonfdgienntuhiQn eO: leaSnSt t^hfa+ths^hra^l I Lhji!-;{_;_ ± invst.-di:rU: i ;n i;eu : alttSe : ::yg :annet ?fh aba:!na.nadrli,fi:hue ;:V+eLn^t _O_i_i_Ppre b;i;6 -;_o~rie-i;;'fft-£sut: 't;:a dl:nL:;:eu:egsrsano[f t!:H£rrOhSfehCQu;}iPn , in the norm al cou rs; ;f-;iierft-s:ir;;-a;cvu`::d7sc I:nI;ilt;:ldeF: :1n order of bail.'' ll. As seen from the record, as per the G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 21.05.2018, private indjvjduals can also remove the sl|[t in large scale from the tanks/reservoirs, and transport the silt, and use the same for their private/commercial purposes wI®th theI|r OWn Cost, Without any burden on government's exchequer. Later, vide G.O]Ms.No.74, dated 14.10.2019, amendment was eF9Cted tO G.O.Ms.No.40 that any commercl|al use of silt would be severely punI|Shable, including the seizI-ng Of COnVeyance of vehI'C[e and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-or ten times the cost of silt as per the current SSR, whI-CheVer jS more. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.2026, dated o6.10,2022, 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 a_g_eiTSt Magunta srinivasulu Reddy, T.Uday Kumar Reddy and sridhar Reddy under sectI'OnS 427 of fthe I.P.C.,I and section 21 of{he MMDAR Act in V.Satram Police Stat['on. The Accused No.2 Its an agrjcul{urist havI'ng fixed abode and landed properties in his name. 13. On 24.12.2023 the investigating officer submitted a proposal to refer the case as actI'On dropped tO the Sub-DivisjonaI Police officer, Nellore Rural. On 30.12.2023, the Sub-DjvjsI-OnaI Police officer NeI]ore Rural issued proceedings - , -.=-.-T i I.`- vide c.No.662/Ref-SDO.N(R)/2023, dateld 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 lnspectorofPolice, 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- D'IViSiOnal Police Officer, Nellore Rural, to reopen the case. The Sub-Div'lsionaI 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 fthe I.p.c.,I and section 21(4) of {the MMDR Act.,I and Section 4 of the Prevention of public property Act, 1984 (for brevity {the PDPP Act'), was forwarded tO the learned lI Additional Judicial Magistrate of F'lrst Class, _N.e`l+Ore for judicial remand. However, the learned Magistrate refused to send the Petitioner, who was accused No.1 in the above, to judicial remand ?_a.__all tt.h_e offe.nQ`e.a. vy9re punishable below sever` ye.ars, and~ released him On bail. ---` ,----,.--------`..-`` ` -I.I .--``.I-,_-`^` 16. lt has to be pointed out that immediately, on the same day, i.e., On o7.06.2025, the de-facfo complainant herein by name Valluru Ramesh Naidu, I- submitted a simlllar complaint which was regisJered a_s F.I_R.tin. Q~r.N_Q._1_ 03/2025, more or less, jn respect of the same transaction, before the station House -roar---___ _ officer, venkatachala satram police s{atI-On, On the similar aIIegat]|ons. 17. Prima FacI-e, On a bare perusal of the averments of the FIR ahd the progress of the inves{igat[|on conducted so far, applicabj[ity and attraction of section 409 of fthe I.p.c.,I jn respect of the petitioners is doubtful. Indeed, the petjtI|OnerS have a fI'Xed abode and are permanent residents of lndupuru village of AIIuru Mandal. The possjbjljty of fleeing away from the clutches of law would not arise. Therefore, the petI'{jOnerS may not-abscond or otherwI|Se ml-suse their liberty, if pre-arrest bail is granted to them. ln that view of fact that on earlier occasion in respect of the same set of transactions the sub-DivisionaI Police officer gave permission to refer the case as civI'I nature. There seems to-be no justjfjcatjon to require the petitioners first to submit to custody, remain jn prison for some days and then apply for bail. A great ignominy, humjI[-a{I|On and disgrace is attached to arrest, if the petitioners are arrested. F_uJlrrer., I_he, alleged Ln_ei_de_nt occurred prI-Or tO 02.08.2023 i.e., more than one and half years ago. The delay is not plausibly explained. 18. To maintain a balance I-n between the two factors namely no prejudI-Ce should be caused to free, fair and full investjgatl|on and preventl-on of harassment, humiliation and unjus{ified detention of the petI-tiOnerS, this Court incll-Res to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners wI-th the following stringent . conditions. [n view of the gravity and nature of the aIIegatl-ons levelled against the petitI-Oners/accused Nos.2 and 3, and their alleged exact role Pa;/a-- --/I. _, #ESap# EE==L ` played -ln this case, this Court deems it fit tO grant Pre-arrest bail tO the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3. 19. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed With the following conditions: i. ln the event of their arrest, the pet'ltioners/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, .aLn±~f_ul]y 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 beforethe - station House Officer concerned once in a Week i.e., On 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 leavethe limits of the state without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. *.k* .-, VI. To, 1O The petjt[-oners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 sha" surrender theI'r passports, I|f any, to the I-nVeStl-gating offI-Cer. lfthey clal'm that they do not have a passport, they shall subml-t an affidavI-I tO that effect to the lnvestigatI'ng Officer. SD/- K. TATA RAO //TRUE COPY// D E PgrGISTRAR For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1. The ll AdditI-OnaI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. The lVAddI'tiOnaI DI'StriCt & SessI-OnS Judge, NeIIore. 3. The Station House officer, venkatachala satram police Station, spsR NeIIore DI'StriCt. 4. One CC to SRI. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDYAdvocate [opuc] 5. One CC to SRl. C SUBODH Advocate [opuc] 6. Two CCs to Public prosecutor (AP) High Court ofA.P., Amaravatj [OUT]. 7. One spare copy _ \ HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 25/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.NOS.7332 & 7297 OF 2025 ALLOWED