IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV I/ FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 207 OF 2025 Between : -;. -i;.:::-`: a Emidi Venkatesh @ veera venkatesh, s/o Marati Venkatarao, aged 33years, R/0 D.No.64-35, Kori Market, Ramdaspeta, 46th Ward, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Through its S.H.O, Chinthapalli Circle and PS ...Respondent/Complainant Petl'tion under section 440(2) of Cr.P.C & Under Section 484 (2) of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may beg PIeased to relax the condition No. (i) in Para No.9 on execution of Self-bond for Rs.50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties order made in CrI.M.P.No.764 of 2024 (Ecourts Crl.M.P.No.3321 of 2024 in Cr. No.86 of 2024 of Chinthapalli police station) on the file of the Court of the Principal' District & Sessions Judge Court at Visakhapatnam, dated 20-12-2024 The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitI'On and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI PANGI RAJU'BABU, Advocate for the petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the court made the following The instant criminal petition l's filed under Section 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS) on behalf of the petitioner/A2, seeking to relax the condition imposed v,'de order dated 20.12.2024 I-n Crl.M.P No.764 of 2024 on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in connection with crime No.86 of 2024 of Chinthapalli Police Statl'on, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner/Al is an accused in Crime No.86 of 2024 of Chinthapalli Poll'ce Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for offences Punishable under Section 103 & 238 r/w 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Alct. 5. The petitioner/Al l's granted bail by an order dated 20.12.2024 Crl.M.P No.764 of 2024 on the file of PrI. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The conditions of the said order reads as follows:- a I/ ttI-) the Petl'tjoner/2nd Accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on his executI-ng a self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FI-fly Thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satl-sfaction of learned JudicI'al First Class Magistrate, chl-nthapalll'. ii) the petjtjoner/2nd Accused shall not tamper the evidence nor threaten the witnesses I-n any manner, (ijl®) the petI'tjOner/2nd Accused shall assI'St the Investigating Agency and sha" attend before the s.H.O, chinthapa"i p.s weekly once on saturday till 29-03-2025 or fI-ling of the final report, whichever is earII®er, (I®V) the Petitioner/2 Accused sha" file hI'S Bank accounts particulars, movable and I.mmOVab[e property particulars, attested copy of Aadhar card and mobile number/s while submitting solvenc,res before the learned Judicial First Class Magl'strate, chinthapalli, if he do not have any of these, Na he sha" file a memo to that extent. lf there is suppression of materI-al informatI'On, the same may warrant for cancellation of bat-I, also PrOSeCutJ'On as per law) (v) The petitioner/2ndAccused shall not commit sIImilar or other offence, (vj) if the petjtjoner/2nd Accused fail to appear in the court lan accordance with the terms of the ba" or bond, he I'S liable for prosecution jncludl-ng under section u/sec.269 of Bharatjya Nyaya sanhitha as per Law, and (vjI®) Violation of any condI-lion entlltles cancellation of bail." Apparently, the state has not challenged the above said orders. 6. Learned counsel for {'he petitioner submits that as the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by doing cooll'e works, it is very difficult for hI'm tO Secure Sureties SO aS tO execute a Personal bond Of Rs.50,000/-., which is the condition precedent to release him, despite obtaining the bail order and the petitioner is forced to remal'n in jail. Thus, the present criminal petition. 7. The role of sureties plays a pivotal role in criminal jurisprudence which are acting as guarantors for the accused in ensuring their compliance with the bal-I conditions and their presence before the concerned Court as and when required. suretl'es balance the right of the accused with the interest of justice and public safety. ln the absence of required sureties leads to multifarious problems to the accused as well as other stake holders. 8. lt is apt to mention that way back in 1970's itself, the Apex Court in Gudikanti Narsimhulu Vs. High Court of A.P1, wherdln, lit -ls Categorically OPined that 'lHeavy bail from poor man is obviously wrong. Poverty is society's malady and sympathy, not sternness, is the judicial response". 9. Thus, a pragmatic and purposive import squarely serves the Purpose Of ensuring the Principle aS tBail is the Rule and Jail is an 1 (1978) 1 SCC 240 ExceptI'On' and also another golden rule is lExcessive Bal-I is no Bail'. Recently, the saI-d legal principles were followed by the Hon'ble Supreme coun -ln Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of lndia2 and in Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Madhya pradesh3 . 10. Therefore, in view of the above we" settled legal position, coupled with the vl'stas of Article 21 of the constitution of India and more so, keeping in view the financl-al capacity of the petitioner as he claims to be from a poor background, thI'S Coun l's of the considered opinion to reduce/relax the personal bond amount from Rs.50,000/-to Rs.10,000/- to the satI'SfaCtiOn Of the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Chinthapalli. lt is made clear that the other bail condl-lions shall remain unaltered. Accordingly, the crimI'nal Petl-lion iS allowed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. ,NAdAfL"A ASSISTANT REGIS+BAR / #w46ZZA SECTION OFFICER To] FoI 1. The principal District & sessI'OnS Judge at vlsakhapatnam, VI-Sakhapatnam Dl-strict 2. The Judicial First class MagI'Strate Court at chI'nthapam, Visakhapatnam DI'Strl'Ct 2 (2024) Livelaw SC 571 3 (2024) 10 SCC 674 Qr= 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, visakhapatnam District 4. The Station House Officer, Chinthapalli Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District 5. One CC to SRl. PANGI RAJU BABU Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT MRK,J DATED: 17/01/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.207 of 2025 ALLOWED J,/ /r/ =`=,5=E'_ •2 0 ljAN 2»25 `t • s £_p_££fflgiv `L£in¥4W`rfe,imv enRAitueRA.`ui"cL^u`.\\,un,I