1 APHC010383842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7838/2025 Between: 1. GINJUPALLI ASHOK KUMAR, S/O YEDUKONDALU, AGE 38 YEARS, R/O 13TH WARD, SRIRAM NAGAR, SATTENAPALLI MANDAI,PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. VELIPULA NAVEEN, S/O SAIDHAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCIBUSINESS, R/O 13TH WARD, SATTENAPALLI TOWN, SRIRAM NAGAR, PALNADU,GUNTUR DISTRICT-522403 ...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 may be pleased to quash the order dated 01.07.2025 in CrI. M.P. No. 926 of 2025 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crime No. 53 of 2025 and restore the bail granted to the Petitioner vide order dated 08.05.2025 in CrI.M.P.No. 666 of 2025 and all consequential proceedings pending against the Petitioner IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. THOKA DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7838/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of BNSS., has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.926 of 2025 in Crime No.53 of 2025 and restore the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.05.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.666 of 2025. 2. Heard Sri T.Deva Deepak, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was released on bail in Crime No. 53 of 2025, vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 666 of 2025 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Subsequent to his release, a second FIR in Crime No. 96 of 2025 was registered against the petitioner/accused under Sections 74, 79, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), based on a complaint lodged by one Meduri Nagajyoti, alleging that the petitioner had committed criminal intimidation while under the influence of alcohol. He would further submit that the petitioner has nothing to do with the 2nd FIR and a false case has been registered against the petitioner with a view to harass him. Despite this, the prosecution, relying solely on the registration of the second FIR, moved an 4 application seeking cancellation of bail granted in Crime No. 53 of 2025. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, allowed the said application vide Order dated 01.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.926 of 2025 and directed the petitioner to surrender. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that on certain conditions, learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner/accused vide order dated 08.05.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.666 of 2025. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that after release on bail, accused again committed the alleged offence in Crime No.96 of 2025 which clearly amounts to violation of condition imposed by the Court in Crl.M.P.No.666 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that bail which was granted earlier was rightly cancelled by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, and no interference is warranted by this Court. 5. Considering the submissions and fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it appears that the petitioner, after being granted bail on certain conditions, has been involved in a subsequent offence, which prima facie amounts to violation of the conditions imposed by the Court in the earlier bail order dated 08.05.2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 666 of 2025 and The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly cancelled the bail granted earlier. In that view of the matter, this Court 5 does not find anything warranting interference while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 28.07.2025 UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7838/2025 Dated.28.07.2025 UPS 166