APHC010557662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:10814, 9856 & 11441 of 2025 Crl.P.No.10814 of 2025 Between: 1.BELLAMKONDA VENKATA GOWTHAM, S/O.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O.BAKTHA VATSALA NAGAR, OPP KRISHNA MANDIR, NELLORE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Ongole Taluq Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Crl.P.No.9856 of 2025 Between: 1.BORLAGUNTA VINOD KUMAR, . S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 32 YEARS, KSHTRIYAS BY CASTE, RESIDING AT KOPPOLU ROAD, NEAR DREAMS SCHOOL, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ONGOLE TALUKA POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 2.ADUSUMALI BHASKAR RAO, S/O. SINGARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. MODEPALLI VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Crl.P.No.11441 of 2025 Between: 1.TUVVARA VAMSI KRISHNA ALIAS JALS VAMSI, S/O VENKATA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, BALAJI NAGAR, YESAIAH NAGAR, NELLORE. 2.MANNEM TEJA ALIAS BANNY, S/O MOHAN BABU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, DAMARAMADUGU VILLAGEBUCHIREDDYPALEM MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P.NAGENDRA REDDY 2. JALLI KANUKA 3. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. PRAVEEN KUMAR TADISETTI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: There three Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as these three Petitions arise out of same crime but for different Accused. 3 2. Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 on bail in Crime No.249 of 2025 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 331(5), 103(2), 351(2), 58, 49 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5 submit that the Petitioners are innocent persons who have been falsely implicated in the present case due to extraneous considerations, prejudice, and a biased investigation. It is submitted that the Petitioners have absolutely no connection with the alleged offences registered in Crime No.249 of 2025 on the file of Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District. Their implication, it is contended, is the result of conjecture, suspicion, and mala fide intent rather than any concrete or credible evidence. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the investigation has been conducted in a prejudiced and mechanical manner, leading to the wrongful implication of the Petitioners. None of their names appeared in the First Information Report at the time of registration, and their subsequent inclusion through alteration of the FIR was arbitrary and unsupported by any tangible material. The Petitioners were allegedly implicated only based on hearsay, confessional statements of co- accused, and presumptive links, which are inadmissible under Section 23 of 4 the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 20231, and cannot by themselves sustain a charge or continued detention. It is further contended that there is no direct, circumstantial, or corroborative evidence linking the Petitioners to the commission of the alleged offence. No eyewitnesses, CCTV footage, call data records, or forensic materials have been produced to establish their involvement. The alleged recovery of a two-wheeler with bloodstains, relied upon against Accused No.1, lacks any scientific proof connecting it to the petitioner at the relevant time. Mere ownership or possession of a vehicle cannot constitute criminal liability in the absence of proof of knowledge, consent, or participation. Similarly, no specific overt acts or roles are attributed to Accused Nos. 2, 4, and 5, and only vague, omnibus allegations are made against them in general terms. 4. The learned Counsel further submits that the prosecution’s allegations regarding conspiracy or monetary transactions between the petitioners and other accused persons are wholly baseless, unsupported by any documentary or electronic evidence such as promissory notes, bank records, or communication data. The supposed motive or debt attributed to some of the accused has not been substantiated by any credible material. The Petitioners assert that they had no motive, animosity, or prior connection with the deceased, and their implication appears to stem from political and financial rivalries among third parties, for whose benefit the investigating agency has allegedly distorted the facts. 1 ‘the B.S.A’ 5 5. The learned Counsel also contends that the investigation is substantially complete, the preliminary charge sheet has been filed on 11.08.2025, and key witnesses have already been examined. Therefore, further custodial interrogation serves no purpose. The continued detention of the Petitioners amounts to pre-trial punishment and constitutes an unjustifiable deprivation of their personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is emphasized that Articles 21 and 22, along with the directives laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.,2 , mandate fairness in arrest and detention procedures. Allegations of irregular arrest timelines and manipulation of arrest records further violate these constitutional safeguards. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that all Petitioners are law-abiding citizens with permanent residence and family responsibilities, having no prior criminal antecedents. They are willing to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit, including regular attendance before the Investigating Officer or Trial Court, non-tampering with evidence, and full cooperation during trial. 6. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI3, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan4, and Ranjitsing Brahmajeet Singh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra5, which reaffirm the principle that bail is the 2 (1997) 1 SCC 416 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40 4 (2005) 2 SCC 42 5 (2005) 5 SCC 294 6 rule and jail is the exception, particularly when investigation is completed and the accused are unlikely to influence the process of justice. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that several co-accused, including A6, A8, A9, A10, A11, and A12, have already been enlarged on bail in similar circumstances, thereby entitling the present Petitioners to the benefit of parity. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 submit that there exists no prima facie evidence to justify their continued incarceration. The prosecution has failed to establish any link, motive, or participation connecting them to the alleged crime. Hence, their prolonged detention violates fundamental rights and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. Accordingly, the Petitioners pray that this Court be pleased to enlarge them on bail, pending trial, subject to such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper. 8. On the other hand, Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the present case pertains to a heinous and premeditated offence involving the brutal murder of the deceased, which has shocked the conscience of society. The allegations against the accused persons, including the present Petitioners, disclose a clear and well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy resulting in the intentional taking of a human life. The gravity and seriousness of the offence, coupled with the way it was executed, disentitle the Petitioners to the relief of bail at this stage. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the materials collected during investigation reveal a clear nexus among the accused persons, operating in furtherance of a common design to 7 eliminate the deceased. The investigation has established that Accused No.12 was the principal conspirator, having engaged Accused Nos.2 to 5 to execute the murder, while Accused No.1 instigated and facilitated the plan by offering substantial monetary inducement. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioners were actively involved in carrying out the said conspiracy and that their participation is borne out by witness statements, material evidence, and the confession of co- accused recorded in conformity with law. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the contention of the learned defence counsel regarding false implication and lack of evidence is wholly untenable. The case against the petitioners is supported by multiple strands of circumstantial evidence that form an unbroken chain pointing towards their guilt. The weapon used in the offence, as well as vehicles allegedly employed by the accused at the scene, have been recovered during investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor asserts that such recoveries have led to the discovery of material facts under Section 27 of ‘the B.S.A.,’ which are admissible and directly link the petitioners to the commission of the offence. The statements of eyewitnesses and supporting witnesses collectively point to the presence and active participation of the petitioners. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the argument advanced by the learned defence counsel regarding lack of direct evidence cannot be sustained, as the law recognizes that grave offences such as murder can be proved through a combination of circumstantial evidence and corroborative 8 testimony. The totality of the evidence collected so far adequately establishes the petitioners' complicity and involvement. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the investigation has revealed that the accused persons, including the petitioners, had clear motives rooted in financial dealings and conspiratorial arrangements. The allegations that Accused No.12 financed and directed the operation, while Accused Nos.1 to 5 executed it, stand substantiated by materials seized and statements recorded under Section 180 of ‘the BNSS.’ The learned Public Prosecutor asserts that such evidence cannot be brushed aside at the stage of bail merely on the claim of innocence. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the offence is one falling within the category of heinous crimes where personal liberty must yield to the demands of public interest and the necessity of a fair trial. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the precedents relied upon by the defence, such as Sanjay Chandra supra and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar supra, are not applicable to the present case, as those decisions were rendered in different factual contexts where the offences were not of such depravity or organized character as seen here. The settled principle that “bail is the rule and jail the exception” cannot be applied in a mechanical manner to cases involving grave and diabolical offences like the present one, where the collective interest of society outweighs individual liberty. It is therefore submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the seriousness of the allegations, the strong prima facie evidence gathered during investigation, and the potential for interference with the due course of justice if the petitioners are released, all operate 9 decisively against the grant of bail. The learned Public Prosecutor prays that this Court be pleased to dismiss the bail applications of the petitioners. 12. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this case pertains to a well-organized and heinous murder, reflective of deep-seated criminality, conspiracy, and a coordinated assault resulting in the infliction of 54 wounds upon the deceased. The material presented and the circumstances ascertained during investigation demonstrate the presence of multiple accused acting pursuant to a prior concert, driven by personal grudges and financial motivations. At the outset, this Court observes that Accused Nos.2, 4, and 5 have established criminal antecedents, with Accused No.2 having six prior cases, Accused No.4 having one antecedent, and Accused No.5 involved in two previous offences. The presence of such antecedents indicates a propensity for unlawful behaviour and sustained disregard for the rule of law, thereby negating the presumption of innocence at this interlocutory stage. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.,6 held that grant of bail to habitual offenders may not be justified on considerations of merely being in custody; antecedents must be considered in evaluating the likelihood of recidivism and the necessity for custodial control. Further, the evidence gathered in the present investigation, including the statements of material witnesses LWS.1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, establishes the presence of multiple eyewitnesses directly supporting the prosecution narrative. 6 (2014) 16 SCC 508 10 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeru Yadav supra observed in para Nos. and 16 that the High Court erred in granting bail without properly considering the role of the accused, his criminal antecedents, and the gravity of the offence, especially since the trial had already commenced and there was a real possibility of witness intimidation; while emphasizing that liberty is a fundamental, priceless, and natural right forming the bedrock of constitutional and human rights principles, the Court clarified that such liberty is not absolute and can be curtailed by society through due process of law when an individual poses a danger to collective order, as unchecked liberty leading to chaos and anarchy is impermissible; thus, courts must balance the sanctity of liberty with societal responsibility, act within established legal parameters, and cannot exercise discretion whimsically or capriciously when liberty is misused to disrupt social harmony. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, as in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh7, that when the prosecution case is fortified by direct eyewitness testimony and material evidence, bail must be refused unless the evidence is demonstrably unreliable or insufficient. Moreover, the investigation has unearthed a detailed network of conspiracy. Accused Nos.6, 7, and 8, who bore animosity towards the deceased, sought the assistance of Accused No.1, who in turn solicited the services of Accused No.12. Accused No.12 then recruited Accused Nos.2 to 5 to execute the murder. The presence of active conspiratorial linkage and coordinated execution establishes prima facie guilt 7 1960 SCC OnLine SC 2 11 and underscores the gravity of the offence. The financial quid pro quo is evidenced by Accused No.1’s receipt of one lakh rupees from Accused No.7, further corroborating the prosecution case. While Accused Nos.6, 7, and 8 have secured bail due to their peripheral involvement or changed circumstances, the roles of Accused Nos.2, 4, and 5 cannot be analogized on the principle of parity. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Captain Jagjit Singh supra held that the High Court committed a fundamental error in granting bail without first determining whether the offence was bailable or non-bailable; the proper course was to assume the offence was non-bailable and then consider the established parameters for bail in such cases, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances peculiar to the accused, the likelihood of securing his presence at trial, the possibility of witness tampering, and the larger interests of the public and the State; although the High Court has wide powers under Section 498 of the CrPC, those powers must be exercised with due regard to these considerations, and by failing to do so and proceeding as if the offence might be bailable, the High Court erred in its approach to the bail application. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar supra cautioned against mechanical grant of bail on parity when the nature of participation and criminal antecedents differ significantly. The magnitude of violence, as reflected in the infliction of 54 distinct injuries, reveals the brutal intent and egregiousness of the act, warranting strict custodial control to 12 preserve the sanctity of investigation and the interests of justice. The judicial conscience impels restraint in granting bail in cases of aggravated and premeditated homicide, lest society lose faith in the criminal justice system. Additionally, the risk of tampering with witnesses remains palpable, particularly as several eyewitnesses hail from the same locality. Enlarging the petitioners on bail at this juncture may seriously prejudice the prosecution in securing credible testimony. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra supra emphasized that the discretionary power to grant bail must be exercised with caution, balancing individual liberty and societal interests. It reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and prolonged pre-trial detention undermines this principle. In cases involving numerous accused, voluminous evidence, and lengthy trials, keeping individuals in custody beyond the likely sentence period is unjust. Even for serious offences, bail should not be denied when investigation is complete and there is no substantial risk of tampering with evidence or obstructing justice. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar supra held that personal liberty, though a constitutional guarantee under Article 21, can be curtailed by procedure established by law, and detention for non-bailable offences during trial is lawful. However, bail may be granted if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case or if circumstances justify release despite such a case. A rejected bail application does not bar a subsequent one when there is a change in circumstances, and courts may grant bail accordingly. 13 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma supra held that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right, and Article 21 not only guarantees life and liberty but also ensures fair procedure. Liberty should not ordinarily be restricted except on cogent grounds, and while giving the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to oppose bail is a reasonable restriction. 21. This Court is mindful of its duty to balance the individual interests of liberty with the greater public interest in ensuring a fair and unimpeded trial, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi8 wherein at paragraph No.18 held that while considering bail, courts must weigh several factors: whether there are prima facie grounds to believe the accused committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the charges, severity of possible punishment, risk of absconding, the accused’s character and standing, likelihood of repeating the offence, reasonable apprehension of witness tampering, and the danger of justice being thwarted. A mere vague allegation of interference is insufficient, but if the accused’s presence itself intimidates witnesses or there is material showing misuse of liberty to obstruct justice, bail should be denied. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amarmani Tripathi supra further emphasized that bail discretion must be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. Orders granting bail, especially in serious offences, must record reasons showing prima facie satisfaction of the charge. Though detailed 8 (2005) 8 SCC 21 14 evaluation of evidence is unnecessary at this stage, courts must consider the seriousness of the accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, apprehension of witness tampering or threat to the complainant, and overall satisfaction regarding the charge. Any bail order lacking such reasoning suffers from non-application of mind and fails to meet the settled principles of law. 23. The period of incarceration, when weighed against the gravity of the crime, the potential threat to public order, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or exerting undue influence upon witnesses, justifies the denial of bail. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the organized nature of the offence, there exists every apprehension that the petitioners, if released, would interfere with the ongoing judicial process or intimidate witnesses, several of whom are residents of the same locality. The principle of parity cannot be mechanically applied in the present matter. The co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail were assigned peripheral or accessory roles, whereas the present petitioners have been attributed with direct and active participation in the execution of the crime. Investigation unveiled sufficient material demonstrating that the accused, including the petitioners, acted with premeditated intent, proper coordination, and deliberate planning in the commission of the crime. 24. In view of the above, considering the seriousness of the charges, the existence of multiple criminal antecedents, the presence of direct and credible eyewitnesses, the well-established accusation of conspiracy, and the 15 propensity of the petitioners for habitual criminal conduct, this Court finds no merit in the bail applications filed by Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5. This Court feels that releasing the petitioners at this juncture would send a wrong signal to society and undermine public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. The interests of justice, public safety, and integrity of the process unequivocally demand the continued judicial custody of the petitioners. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the bail petitions filed by Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5 are liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.11.2025 VTS