APHC010490692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:9677, 9967 & 9669 of 2025 Crl.P.No.9677 of 2025 Between: LINGAREDDY SOMSSHEKAR REDDY, S/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAREDU VILLAGE, ULAVAPADU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT), ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through S.H.O. Ulavapadu Police Station AP High Court Buildings, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.9967 of 2025 Between: NALLAPADAREDDY AJIT KUMAR REDDY @ NALLAPUREDDY AJITH REDDY, S/O CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAREDU VILLAGE, ULAVAPADU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT 2 (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT), ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through S.H.O. Ulavapadu Police Station AP High Court Buildings, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.9669 of 2025 Between: NALLAPADAREDDY AJIT KUMAR REDDY @ NALLAPUREDDY AJITH REDDY, S/O CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAREDU VILLAGE, ULAVAPADU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT), ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through S.H.O. Ulavapadu Police Station AP High Court Buildings, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 Common Order: These three Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as they arise out of one crime, although the Petitioners are different. 2. Criminal Petition No.9669 of 2025 is dismissed as infructuous as the Petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on execution of a P.T. warrant on 22.09.2025. 3. Criminal Petition No.9677 of 2025 has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.144 of 2025 of Ulavapadu Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 311, 119(1), 126(2), 351(3), 333 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 4. Criminal Petition No.9967 of 2025 has been filed under Section 480 & 483 of ‘the BNSS’ by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.144 of 2025 of Ulavapadu Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 311, 119(1), 126(2), 351(3), 333 and 3(5) of ‘the BNS’. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 4 5. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Kolluru Mahesh, voluntarily agreed to transfer his land to Indo Solar Company during a Gram Sabha held on 04.07.2025 and encouraged fellow villagers to support the project. During the said meeting, the accused persons, Ajith Reddy, Somasekhar Reddy, and two unnamed associates allegedly restrained the complainant, criminally intimidated him, and committed theft of a gold ring valued at Rs.28,000. It is further alleged that Ajith Reddy, armed with a knife, threatened the complainant with grievous harm, accusing him of reneging on a prior land sale commitment. Despite the threats, the complainant and others continued to support the project, which led to further obstruction by the accused. On 24.07.2025, the accused allegedly trespassed into the complainant’s residence and endangered his life, forcing him into hiding. On 30.08.2025, Somasekhar Reddy purportedly issued further threats via a message allegedly sent on behalf of Ajith Reddy, then in judicial custody, warning of harm to the complainant’s family if the land was sold to the company. Due to persistent threats and fear for personal safety, the complainant delayed reporting the matter but ultimately lodged a complaint on 10.09.2025, seeking legal action against all the accused. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 6. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant proceedings and asserts that no offence, as alleged in the complaint, has been committed by them. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their 5 families, and any coercive action, including arrest, would result in grave and irreparable hardship to their dependent family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are a law-abiding citizen with a permanent place of residence and is willing to comply with any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. The Petitioners undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assures the Court of their continued presence as and when required. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further argues that there is enormous delay from the date of alleged offences till the date of de-facto complainant lodging a report with the police. The de-facto complainant himself is unruly element, he was involved in two cases. There is no land for the de- facto complainant in the village. Because of political animosity between the accused and the present political dispensation in the district, the Petitioners were falsely roped into the criminal cases in order to take personal and political vengeance against the Petitioners. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and that custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners have already extended full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and there exists no reasonable apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence and it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused 6 No.2 and to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in the interest of justice and equity. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 9. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and sensitive stage, and that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is indispensable for unearthing material facts germane to the offence. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail or regular bail at this juncture would seriously impede the investigative process, as there exists a grave apprehension that the Petitioners may not extend requisite cooperation and may attempt to evade the due process of law. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the Petitioners have approached this Court directly without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at the first instance. Therefore, as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala1 the Petitioner of Accused No.2 is not maintainable. Further is it vehemently opposed for grant of bail to Accused No.1 and pre-arrest bail to Accused No.2. It is further argued that the Accused No.2 raised an alibi, but that alibi is a false one and at the stage of consideration of an application filed for grant of pre-arrest bail the 1 SPL (Crl.) Nos.6588 of 2025 7 plea of alibi of accused No.2 cannot be entertained. Further it is submitted that there are call data recordings available between the Accused No.2 and other accused. Submitting so the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.148/2022 dated 06.04.2022 wherein the burden of proving the plea of alibi is on the accused. 11. The prosecution further contends that the Petitioners, if granted the relief sought, may exert undue influence upon material witnesses or tamper with incriminating evidence, thereby vitiating the integrity of the investigation and obstructing the course of justice. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential prejudice to a fair and impartial inquiry, it is prayed that the instant application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process. 12. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 13. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “1. Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is entitled for grant of pre- arrest bail? 2. Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 14. As seen from the report lodged by the de-facto complainant which runs into two pages in detail with typewriting, the first alleged incident happened on 04.07.2025. The second alleged incident happened on 24.07.2025 and the 8 third alleged incident happened on 30.08.2025. Whereas the Petitioner leisurely lodged first information report with the Superintendent of Police, Karedu on 10.09.2025, thus there is a delay of 68 days from the date of first incident till the date of the FIR. There is a delay of 48 days from the date of second incident till the date of the FIR. There is a delay of 11 days from the date of third incident till the date of the present FIR. 15. The reason assigned by the de-facto complainant is that he was in fear that he would be killed by the Petitioners if he reports about the alleged offences to the police against the Petitioners. Against the de-facto complainant there are altogether two cases, one is in FIR No.77/2024 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 79 & 118(1) of ‘the BNS’ of Ulavapadu Police Station. In that case a chargesheet was also filed against the de-facto complainant and Calendar Case number was also given, the case is coming for issuance of summons. There is another case also registered against the de-facto complainant in FIR No.189/2020 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ of Ulavapadu Police Station. Therefore, the apprehension that the de-facto complainant that he would be killed by the Petitioners if he reveals against the Petitioners to the police is not convincing and reasonable. 16. This Court in Crl.P.No.8900/2025 on 10.09.2025 enlarged the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on regular bail. Accused No.1 when he was in judicial custody in Cr.No.5/2025 of Kanigiri Police Station a petition filed for issuance of P.T. warrant against him before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. The 9 learned Jurisdictional Magistrate on 19.09.2025 issued P.T warrant against the Accused No.1. On 22.09.2025 the P.T warrant was executed and the accused was shown arrested in the instant crime i.e., FIR No.144/2025 of Ulavapadu Police Station. 17. Criminal Petition No.9967/2025 was filed by the Accused No.1 on 19.09.2025. In this regard, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that as on the date of filing of the petition in Criminal Petition No.9967/2025 which is filed for grant of regular bail to the Petitioner is premature and not maintainable as the Accused No.1 was shown arrested in the instant crime only on 22.09.2025. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that three days prior to the arrest of the Accused No.1, a petition for grant of regular bail was filed, therefore Criminal Petition No.9967/2025 has to be dismissed as premature as on the date of filing of the petition. 18. However, after all it is a matter of liberty of Accused No.1 is involved in these batch of cases, therefore the technical objection of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the Petition is liable to be dismissed for premature filing is unsustainable for the simple reason that as on today the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is in the judicial custody in FIR No.144/2025 on the file of Ulavapadu Police Station. 19. Even though, there are some witnesses to the alleged three incidents that happened on three different dates as per the report lodged by the de-facto complainant, there was inexplainable delay in lodging the FIR with the police by the de-facto complainant. A fortiori, the de-facto complainant has no lands 10 in his name in regard to the alleged threats, the parents of the de-facto complainant did not want to give the lands to the government for land pooling for establishment of industrial hub by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The parents of the Petitioners got some land. A notification contemplated under Section 11(1) of ‘the Act’ was issued, therefore no question of transfer of land would arise. So far four witnesses have been examined. 20. The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that there are four adverse criminal antecedents reported against the Accused No.1 and one adverse criminal antecedent reported against the Accused No.2. Mere pendency of adverse criminal cases against the Petitioners is not a sole basis to deny the grant of bail, for the reason that the Petitioners/Accused shall be presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P.,2 at paragraph No.7 also held that existence of criminal cases against the Petitioners/Accused is not a sole ground to deny the request for grant of bail. CONCLUSION: 21. Considering the entire gamut of the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioners, Accused No.1 is entitled for grant of regular bail, Accused No.2 is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. 2 (2020) 11 SCC 648 11 22. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.9677/2025 is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 he shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the 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 Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 are directed not to enter into the disputed village i.e., Karedu Village of Ulavapadu Mandal till filing of the charge sheet. vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have 12 passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 23. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.9967/2025 is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kandukur. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Ulavapadu Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 are directed not to enter into the disputed village i.e., Karedu Village of Ulavapadu Mandal till filing of the charge sheet v. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall 13 make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 24. Accordingly, Criminal Petition Nos.9677 & 9967 of 2025 are allowed and Criminal Petition No.9669 of 2025 is dismissed as infructuous. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 VTS