MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT.- THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.- 562 OF 2025 Between : Kate Suribabu, s/o Raju, Aged 38 years, R/o. D.No.1-165, Katravulapalli VI-IIage, Jaggampeta MandaI, Kakinada District. Petitioner/Accused-5 The State ofAndhra pradesh, Rep. By l'ts Public Prosecutor, Hl'gh Court of A.P., Amaravati, Through station House Officer, Sarpavaram police Station, Kakinada District AND Respondent petition under sectl'on 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C / Under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023 I-s filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A.5 on Regular Bail in FIR No. 321 of 2011 on the file of Sarpavaram police Station, Kakinada DI-Strict, dated 05.12.2011. The petition/Appeal comI-ng On for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed I'n Support thereof and upon hearI-ng the arguments of sri K APPA RAO Advocate for the petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the court made the following. APHCO10O28572025 EifeE J9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3 365] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 562 of 2025 Betwee n : 1.KATE SURIBABU, S/O RAJU, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1- 165, KATRAVULAPALLI VILLAGE, JAGGAMPETA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. .MPETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRAESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SARPAVARAM POLICE STATION, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT I Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.KAPPA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short {BNNS') is filed by petitioner/A5, seeking regular bail in Crime No.321 of 2011 of Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 304(B), 201 r/w 34 of IPC.gr L= \ 2. Heard Sri K.Appa RIao, learned counsel for petitioner/A5 and Sri A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State. 3. Perused the record. 4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and Perused the record, it is seen that the FIR in th'ls case was registered On 05.12.2011 for the offence punishable under sections 120(B), 302, 304(B), 201 I/w I 34 of lPC. The case was duly investigated, and a charge Sheet Was filed through the station House Officer, Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada District. The same was registered before the Special Mobile Judicial First class Magistrate, Kakinada, as P.R.C.No.5 of 2015. The accused No.5, who is the petitioner herein, is stated to be an agricultural laborer. During the investigation, A5 was arrested on 12.12.2011 and remanded to judicial custody. subsequently, he applied for bat-I, Which Was granted, and he was released on bail. During the committal proceedings, it was necessary for all the accused to appear, but the petitioner/A5 failed to appear before the court, resulting in a delay in the committal proceedings for several years. Consequently, the learned Magistrate decided to split up the case as against A4 and A5. A Non-Bailable I warrant was issued, and after consi'derable efforts, it Was executed On 23,10,2023, and A5 was remanded to judicial custody. His repeated prayers for bail before the Court below were declined, with detailed reasons provided therein. ln these circumstances, the petitioner/A5 has moved this application before this Court. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly Submitted that the committal proceedings have concluded, and the matter Was Placed before the concerned Sessions Judge, where the charges Were framed,,pe I I- and the trial schedule is to be fixed. The learned COunSel for the petitioner/A5 submits tha't the PetitiOner'S Wife Was Pregnant, and aS a laborer, the petitioner was away from home work|lng for his livelihood. This led tO a COmmun-lCatiOn gap between the Petitioner and h-IS COunSel, resulting in the legal Process Of Warrant, arrest and remand being delayed 6. ln the light Of the above SubmiSSiOnS, and considering thefaCtthat the pet-ltioner has been in judicial custody for more than 1 year 3 months, and the matter has now come up for tr'lal, with the tr'lal schedule to be fixed, it is in the interest of justice to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to present his defense. Accordingly, the petitioner Shall be granted bail as prayed for. Hence, this Court finds that Pet'ltiOner/A5 shall be enlarged on bail. 7. ln view Of the Said Circumstances, the Criminal Pet'ItiOn iS allowed. petitioner herein/A5 shall be enlarged On bail On executing a Personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) W-lth two suret'les of the like sum each to the sat'lsfact'lon of the learned lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kak|lnada. The petitioner iS permitted to furnish the sureties from the state of Andhra Pradesh. He shall not indulge in similar acts of.crime and shall duly attend the trial of \ the case. The pet'ltiOner Shall regularly appear before the competent court and participate in pre-trial and trial process w'lthout fail. pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Ass/s T¥%-TN; •NA !R£ -r`. \FIP E9,I sis:EAR F_4 tr¢un4 //TRUE COPY/, __. IUN OFFICER ForASSIt>lAI`. _ / To] J' 1. The Special Mobile Judicl-aI lst class Magistrate Court, Kakinada. 2. The Ill Additional District and sessions Judge, Kakinada. 3. The Superintendent, central prison, Rajahmundry. 4. The S.H.O., Sarpavaram police station, Kakinada District. 5. One CC to SRI. K APPA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court ofA.P., Amaravati [OUT]. 7. One spare copy \ HIGH COURT DR VRKS,J DATED : 03/02/2025 BAILL ORDER CRLP.No.562 of 2025 ALLOWED \& #EB"\