APHC010424072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8772/2025 Between: KAILAS BAGH ALIAS KAILASH BAGH ALIAS SUNNAY, S/O. TIRTH BAGH, A/ 30 YEARS, C/ HARIJAN GANDA, RVH COLONY, SCHOOL PARA POST, WRS COLONY, KHAMTRAI - 2 (KHANTARAI), RAIPUR, KHANTARAI, CHATTISGARH - 492008 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Pithapuram Rural Police Station, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8772 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Cr.No.98 of 2023 of Pithapuram Rural Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2023 at about 08:00 P.M., the offence occurred near the outskirts of Kumarapuram Village, and it was reported on 13.06.2023 at 12:30 A.M., by the complainant alleging that boarded a service auto bearing No. AP 05 TG 0091 at Samalkot along with seven other co-passengers. Two unknown male persons had also boarded the auto and sat beside the driver to travel towards Pithapuram. When the vehicle reached the outskirts of Samalkot Village, one of the unknown persons had suddenly stabbed the auto driver in the stomach, dragged him out of the auto, and another 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8772 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 person drove the vehicle towards Pithapuram. One of the accused brandished a country-made weapon, assaulted the complainant and other passengers, and robbed about 48 grams of gold ornaments worth Rs.1,08,000/-, and her cellphone, as well as gold ornaments and cellphones from other passengers. The accused then abandoned the auto at the outskirts of Kumarapuram Village and fled away with the booty. Later, the complainant was shifted to Government Hospital, Pithapuram, for treatment. Basing on the MLC intimation and the recorded statement of the victim, the present FIR was registered. 3. Sri Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8772 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed to grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8772 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 7. As seen from the record, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Crl.P.No.10037 of 2023 dated 29.04.2024, dismissed the Criminal Petition filed seeking enlargement of the petitioner on bail. From that date onwards, there has been no change of circumstances till the filing of the present Criminal Petition. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he stabbed LW.4 four times. The knife with which he allegedly attacked, and a country-made pistol were seized from his possession. 8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and that it would be difficult to secure his presence if he is enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though two cases were registered against him, both ended in acquittal. One case was filed for the offence under Section 302 of ‘the IPC’, which was ended in acquittal. In another case, the petitioner was alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of ‘the IPC’, but that case also ended in acquittal as the petitioner married the victim girl. Even though there is no reference in the FIR about the petitioner using the weapon, in the statements of the witnesses it was elicited that he used the weapon for causing injuries. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8772 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra1 reiterated its’ earlier decision in High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of U.P.,2 wherein it was observed that Criminal Court should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for disposal of the cases pending before any other Courts, extracting Paragraph No.47(3), wherein it is held as under: “47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi supra further observed that a direction, which could be issued only in exceptional circumstances, was being routinely issued by the High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Anshfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 at Paragraph No.22 held as under: “22. It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an 1 Crl.A.No.4758 of 2024 on 25.11.2024 2 2024 2 S.C.R 946 3 2024 7 S.C.R 1054 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8772 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude.” 12. In Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Anshfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari supra, the petitioner was enlarged on bail as he had been in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner for more than nine (09) years. In the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2023 and has been in judicial custody for the past 27 months. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that though a schedule was issued, it was cancelled due to supervening circumstances, and the prosecution has now taken steps for serving summons on the witnesses and producing the material objects, and it would cooperate with the learned Trial Court for speedy disposal of the case. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and as the accusation is well-founded against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this juncture. In view of the fact that there has been no change of circumstances from the dismissal 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8772 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 of the earlier bail application till the filing of the present Criminal Petition, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.09.2025 RSI 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8772 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8772 of 2025 Date: 17.09.2025 RSI