J INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESHATAMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .I PRESENT.- Between : THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RArv8``+I CRIMINAL PETITION NO.- 7407 OF 2025 .- sri Dodla RavI'kanth Chowdary, s/o. D. Raghupathj Naidu, Aged 50 years, Deputy Executive Engineer, (under suspension) APSPDCL, AIlagadda sub- DivI'SiOn, AIIagadda Town, NandyaI District., R/o. H.NO.33/9-10-A, Rythu Nagar, NandyaI Town and Distrl-ct. ... Petitioner/Accused AND state by Deputy superintendent of police ACB KurnooI Range Kurnool, Rep! by its special public prosecutor HI'gh Court ofAndhra pradesh at Amaravathi .. IResponclent/ComplaI-nant of petition under sectl-on 483 of BNSS praying that in the cl'rcumstances stated in the memorandum of grolmds filed Ion support of the criminal Petition, the HIgh Court may be pleased to enlarge the pet,tI'Oner on ba" in cr.No.03/RCA-KUR/2025 ofACB Kurnool Range, Kurnool, KurnooI District. i, The petI-I,-On COmI'ng on for hearing, upon perusI-ng the PetjtI-On and the memorandum of grounds filed I'n Support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SMT M SUGUNA Advocate for the petjtl-oner, and of SRI s.syAM SUNDER RAO, SC cwm spl p.p. For ACB, Advocate for the Respondent, the court made the followl-ng \' .I t, D r.y LR,J Crl. P. No.7407 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIIVllNAL PETITION No.-7407/2025 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity {the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Cr.No.03/RCA-KUR/2025 of ACB Kurnool Range, KurnooI, Kurnool District registered against the petitioner/Accused herein for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (b) of prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, [the Act'). 2. Facts, in brief, of the prosecution are that based on credible source of G5<..` ` information, a preliminary inquiry was initiated against Dodla Ravikanth Chowdary, Deputy Executive Engineer (Operation), APSPDCL, Allagadda Sub-Division, NandyaI District, presently under suspension. ]t was a[[eged that while serving in his official capacity, the accused had amassed assets grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income. Upon detailed verification of financial records and related documents, it was observed that the total value of movable and immovable assets in the possession of the accused stood at Rs.4,16,34,153/-. His estimated legal income during the corresponding period was Rs.2,74,53,000/-, whereas his expenditure was -calculated at Rs.2,21,67,988/-. `After accounting for permI'SSible' Savings amOuntI'ng tO Rs.52,85,012/-, there remained an unexplained surplus of Rs.3,63,49,141/-. / _rEEai- I Dr.YLR,I Crl. P. No.7407 of 2025 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. perused the record. 4. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned SenI'Or Counsel representing Smt. M.Suguna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused offI'Cer, Dodla Ravikanth chowdary, Deputy Executive Engineer (Operation), APSPDCL, was implicated in cr.No.01/RCT-KUR-2025 regI'Stered by the ACB Kurnool Range, for accepting I-llegal gratification. He was arrested on 17.05.2025 and remanded to judl-cial custody; subsequently, he was released on bail on 23.06.2O25. During the period of judicial custody, house searches were conducted on 17.05.2025 and 20.05.2025, wherel'n incriminating mat6rI'al relating to disproportionate acquisition of assets was allegedly discovered. l{ was observed that the accused officer, while serving as a public servant from 22.12.1999 to 16.05.2025 (the date of trap), had acquired movable and immovable assets in his name and in the names of family members that were disproportionate {o his known sources of income. 5. Pursuant to orders issued by the competent authorities, the ACB registered Cr.No.03/RCA-KUR/2025 on 30.06.2025. Subsequent searches were conducted at the residential premises and associated locations of the accused officer on 02.07.2025 in the presence of independent mediators. preliminary assessments revealed that the accused officer and his family possessed properties valued at Rs.4,16,31,153/- (tentatively). His total Probable income was computed at Rs.2,74.53 nOO/-, wl'th expenditures D r-YLR,I Crl.P.No.7407 of 2O25 recorded at Rs.2,21,67,988/-, leaving a savings margin of Rs.52,85,012/i. The remaining unaccounted wealth amounting toI Rs.3,63,49,141/-was alleged to be disproportionate and in violation of section 13(1 )(b) read with sectI'On 13(2) of {the ActJ. Additionally, during searches, documents relating to the properties held by the accused offI|Cer, his Wife, and other relatives were seI'Zed, forming material evidence in support of the allegations. 6. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned SenI|Or Counsel further submits that the Petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. The value of assets attrl-buted to the petitI'Oner includes properties and income sources of close relatI|VeS, Which were allegedly mI-SrePreSented by the ACB officials. The petitionerJs father, a retired RTC employee, held agricultural 'Iands generating considerable income. However, item Mo.ll in the list of assets inaccurately shows Rs.66,000/-and registration charges Rs.6,365/-as attrI'butable to the accused officerJs income. The Petl'tioner's-brother, D.Srikanth, an ex-software Engineer in the u.s. and currently engaged in real estate business in Bangalore, is financl-ally I'ndePendent and capable of acquiring propertI'eS. Yet, item No.6, valued at Rs.22,02,600/- wI'th registration Charges Rs.4,800/-, was allegedly misattributed to the accused officer. 7. Further, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submits that the brother of the Petitioner had availed a loan and constructed the said house independently. Item no.9 lists Rs.12,07,500/-and Rs.16,10,000/-as share incomes of the wife of the accused a'nd his brother's wife respec{iveiy, along Dr.yLR,I Cr[. P.No.7407 of 2025 with Rs.1,57,780/-in registration charges. These, too, were allegedly falsely treated as part of the accused officer's income. 8. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned S'enior Counsel contends that Petitioner]s wI'fe received Substantial agricultural land and gold articles worth approximately one kg from her father at the time of marriage. Neverth'eless, item no.10 lists Rs.5,18,000/-and registration charges Rs.39,O50/-as income -of the accused officer, is also shown falsely in the income of the accused. The construction value shown in item no.2 of immovable assets is reported at Rs.2,24,64,000/-, whereas the actual value is claimed to be close to Rupees One crore. Agricultural income of the wife of the petitioner, rental income exceeding Rs.20 'Iakhs, and cost of renovations were grossly undervalued or exaggerated, skewing the calculation of assets. For instance, renovation costs under items no.4 and 5 were shown at Rs.10 Iakhs each, which the petitioner claims were only Rs.1 Iakh per property. 9. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel further avers that these genuine sources of income, including earnings from rents, salaries, and gifts, were not factored in by the ACB authorities, despite their presentation during the inquiry. The household and educational expenditures were also inflated. Additionally, the .wife of the accused regularly received financial contributions and gifts from her well-off family, including during marriage, which were Omitted from asset valuation. lt is --'L~:++art that the accused officer and his wife have filed Income Tax Return expenditures, and a Dr.y LR,I Crl. P. No.7407 of 2025 Property acquisitions Were clearly disclosed year-wI'Se. All property acquisitions were made with due permissions and were regularly intimated to competent authorities as per conduct rules. 10. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel contends that the ACB suppressed genuine sources of income and exaggerated asset values and expendi{ures to substantiate a false case. The spontaneous explanations provided by the petitioner and -his family were allegedly not recorded or considered. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1 )(b) of {the ActJ, depends on documentary evidence and statements of public officials regarding seized materials. Therefore, there exists no rl-sk df intimidation, inducement, or threat to witnesses. It is further submitted that the petitioner, aged 50 years, suffers from diabetes, hypertension, chronic back pain, and gastric disorders, requiring consistent medical attention. He maintains -an unblemished service I record and a permanent residence' and is wiIII'ng tO Offer Sureties and cooperate with the legal process. As most investigation steps, including seizure of relevant documents, have been completed sI'nCe the initI'al arrest On 17.05.2025, the petitioner avers that his release on bail would not hinder the prosecution's case in any manner. Petitioner cites lack of justification in denial of benefit under Section 35 of fthe BNSS]. As seen from the record, this Court enlarged the Petitioner on bail in Crl.M.P.No.542/9r`5 in Cr.No.03/RCA- KUR/2025 dated 09.07.2025 for the offence ''- 7 of [the Act'. ln the Dr.YLR,J Cr[. P. No.74O7 of 2025 instant case registered for the offence under section 13 of tthe ActJ he was again arrested on 02.07.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 28 days. Petitioner is a government servant havI'ng Permanent resident and abode. If the Petitioner is enlarged on bail no prejudice would be caused to the inves{igla{ion as most of the investigation is based on the records which had already been obtained by the I'nVeStigatI'ng Officer, there may not be any chance of Petitioner further impeding with the investigation. on earII'er occasion, the Petitioner was nearly 51 days in the judI'Cial Custody for the alleged offence under Section 7 of [the ActJ. After he was released from the jail on baI'l again, he was arrested under Section 13 of 'the Act'. ll. The petitioner has filed a bail application before the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, KurnooI, vide CrI.M.P.No.542/2025 in cr.No.03/RCA-KUR/2025 dated 09.07.2025. l{ is submitted that the petitioner was earlier arrested in Cr.No,01/ROT-KUR/2025 on 17.05.2025 and granted bail on 26.06.2025 and subsequently arrested again on o2.07.2025. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterates that, petitioner, as a government servant with established residence and prior bail history without incident, his release would not prejudice the interests of justice or impede investigation; petitioner was falsely implicated by the police in the crime; petitioner would abide by any conditI-OnS 'tO be imposed by this Court; if any condl'tion is imposed while granting the bail, petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to enlarge him on bail. +=-r\_ _ Dr.YLR,I Cr[. F>. No.74O7 of 2025 12. Percor,ira, Sri Syam Sunder Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, opposed in granting of bail .stating that the accused officer, DodI`a Ravikanth Chowdary, Deputy Executive Engineer (Operation), APSPDCL, has been charged under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of fthe Act' for acquisition of assets disproportionate to his' known sources of income. The allegations against the accused are of grave economic and ethical misconduct, involving substantial monetary figures and misuse of public office for personal gain. The registratI'On Of Cr.No.03/RCA-KUR/2025 following detailed searches on 02.07.2025 revealed possession of properties and financial assets valued at Rs.4,16,31,153/-, while the projected savings from known income sources amounted to merely Rs.52,85,012/-, thereby leaving a glaring discrepancy of Rs.3,63,49,141/-. The learned .Counsel for the petitioner seeks to attribute the wealth unearthed to financial independence of relatives; however, the investigation, supported by documentary evidence and corroborative material, indicates interlinked fI'nanCial transactions and indirect control over sal-d assets by the accused. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding the ownership and origin of assets have already been considered and found wanting, lacking credible documentation and legitimate financial trail. 13. It is further submitted that the con{enti6h relating to the accused]s medical conditions namely diabetes, hypertension, and gastric complications does not merit bail consideration, as these ailmente are chronic but not life . Dr.YLR,J Crl. P.No.7407 of 2025 threatening, and can be managed undeF. medical Supervision Within the Prison system. The prosecution underscores that the accused, having held a public office for over two decades, is able to influence co-accused and potential witnesses, and hence -his continued detention is imperative to preserve the sanctity of the investigation. Moreover, the assertion that the accused has cooperated with the investigation and filed Income Tax Returns is insufficient to negate the charges under lthe Act]. Filing of returns does -not authenticate the legitimacy of assets, especially when material evidence points to suppression of income sources and misrepresentation of asset values. The exaggerated expenditures and undervalued asset declarations, coupled with alleged suppression .of financial contributions from relatives, merit comprehensive forensic scrutiny which remains ongoing. The accused, having previously been arrested and enlarged on bail in Cr.No.01/RCT-KUR/2025, was re-arrested in connection with Cr.No.03/RCA-KUR/2025 due to the emergence of fresh incriminating material. His re-arrest further establishes the persistent nature of misconduct and raises serious concerns regarding recurrence of such offences, and he further submits that the accused, public servant, misused his official authority for dishonest and corrupt purposes, intending to unlawfully gain personaI® benefits. This conduct amounts to criminal misconduct and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 14. Be that as it may, the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of incarceration. He was initia[[y remande I n 17.05.2025 and +` Dr.yLR,I Crl_ P_ No_7407 of 2025 10 gr?n{ed bail on 26.06.2025, thereby remaining in custody for 40 days. Subsequently, the petitioner was rearrested on o2.07.2025 and continues to +-_- `' be in judicial custody as of today, i.e., 31.07.2025, accounting for an additional 29 days. In total, the pe{I'tiOner has been incarcerated for 69 days. 15. After careful consideration of the submissions of both the learned Counsel, as well as the documents provided,, this court finds solid reasons to allow-the Criminal Petition, The ,Petitioner was taken into custody on 17.05.2025 and has been incarcerated in connection with cr.No.03/RCA- KUR/2025 and prevI'OuSly in Cr.No.01/RCT-KUR/2025. During this long period of detention, the investigating officer had plenty of time to conduct interrogation, make necessary seI'ZureS, and gather evidence. Keeping the Petitioner in custody at this point is not justl'fiable since there is no compelling need for further detention shown by the learned Special PubII'C Prosecutor. If further interrogation was necessary, it should have been done during the Petitioner's initial remand. 16. Additionally, the mal'n aspects of the case; including seizures of documents, valuation reports, and ,property records, were completed on 17.05.2025, 20.05.2025, and 02.07.2025. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has not proven that continued detention would significantly benefit the investigation. The crimes under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of lthe Act' mainly involve financial irregularities and document-based evidence, which limits the need for custodia-: Jetitioner has a stable home, --r:'1:--''3_ -'iI_:-`T::\LT`'Cll_i I.a ll Dr_YLR,J Crl. P. No.7407 of 2025 ongoing medical issues that require regular care, and has shown willingness to follow any conditions set by this Court. There is no real risk of evidence tampering or influencing witnesses, so extended detention is unnecessary and excessive currently. 17. I Given these considerations, this Court finds it acceptable to allow the Criminal Petition, with the following stringent conditions to protect the integrity-- of the investigation and the judicial process: I_-i? •as-vz2 i. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to them execu'ting a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand onI.y), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Trial ofACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region, KurnooI. ii. The petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer, on every second Saturday in between 10:OO am and 05:00 pm, till the filing of the chargesheet. •' -'` -I,-.-.. iii. The petitioner/Accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted ivith the facts of the case to dissuade him/her . from. disclosing such facts to the court or to any police offi ce r. `.--``~``^-, €b-ts. Dr_YLR,I Crl-P. No_7407 of 2025 12 iv. The petitioner/Accused shall not leave the limits of the country without prI-Or PermiSSI®On from the Investigation Offi ce r- v. The petitI-Oner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the inves{I|gating Officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the lnvestI'gating Officer. 18. Accordingly, the criminal Petition is allowed. Sd/|Sk. IVld. Rafj ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// RZ}sTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region, KurnooI. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First class, NandyaI, KurnooI District 3. The Deputy Superintendent of police, ACB, Kurnool Range, KurnooI, Kurnool District 4. The Superintendent, sub-Jail, KurnooI, Kurnool District 5. The Station House Officer, ACB KurnooI Range, Kurnool District 6. One CC to SMT M. SUGUNAAdvocate [OPUC] 7. One CC toSRI. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC Gum SpI P.P. For ACB Advocate [OPUC] 8. One spare copy PSR / E/ HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:31/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLPINo.7407 of 2025 ALLOWED