APHC010495732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9763/2025 Between: 1. GUNDIA KOTAIAH ALIAS PRASAD, S/O. PRAKASAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. BALAJI NAGAR, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Kalasapadu P.S, YSR (Kadapa) District High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No. 2 on bail in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa (for short, 'the learned trial Court'), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 120-B and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The petitioner is accused No. 2. The case against the petitioner was split up on 10-08-2018 as he was absconding the process of law. By judgment dated 10-08-2018 in S.C.No. 123 of 2017, the learned trial Court acquitted the other accused. The learned trial Court issued non-bailable warrant to the petitioner on 19-07-2022. Later, the petitioner surrendered on 23-05-2025. Pursuant to that surrender, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. 3. Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner would cooperate with the learned trial Court for trial and disposal of the sessions case and he would appear on each and every adjournment before the learned trial Court. The petitioner could not attend before the learned trial Court at relevant point of time as his mother was suffering from ill-health and he filed certificates to that effect also. As the 3 petitioner went to other State for his livelihood, he could not attend before the learned trial Court. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner has to appear before the learned trial Court even if he was in other State due to his livelihood. He should have honoured the process of law and cooperated with the learned trial Court for the disposal of the case. Because of his non-appearance and non- participation in the process of trial, the main case was separated and the case was separately taken up against the petitioner. 5. Considering the entire gamut of the case and the facts and circumstances of the case, if one more opportunity is given to the petitioner, ends of justice would be met inasmuch as the main case was ended in acquittal. The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when required, failing which the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for securing the presence of the petitioner in appropriate mode. 6. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:25-09-2025, JSK 4 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9763 OF 2025 DATE: 25-09-2025 JSK