APHC010307612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.No.2 of 2025 In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 399/2025 Between: Kakani Govardhan Reddy ...APELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Apellant: 1.O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1.M VIDYAVATHI 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: I.A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed, under the caption of 'for being mentioned', by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as the Petitioner could not be in a position to comply with effectively the two conditions imposed in the order passed by this Court. It was also mentioned that the learned Additional Judge (Junior Division), Guntur while granting bail to the Petitioner in Cr.No.3 of 2025 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri vide order dated 11.8.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.358 of 2025 imposed a condition that the Petitioner 2 shall appear before the CID Police Station, Nellore on every Monday. It is also submitted that while the Petitioner was enlarged on bails in other cases a condition was imposed directing the Petitioner to co-operate with the investigation. All the above cases are pending before different Police Stations in Nellore District. 2. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri C.Subodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it has become arduous for the Petitioner to comply with the condition No.viii passed in the order by this Court on 18.8.2025 in Crl.A.No.399 of 2025. Therefore, it is submitted that an order is required to be passed by reconciling the conditions imposed in the Criminal Appeal and also the conditions imposed by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrates in different cases. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 5. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether any order is required to be passed by reconciling the conditions imposed in the Criminal Appeal and also in the orders passed in other cases by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrates?” 6. Mr. M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the condition No.viii imposed in the order dated 18.08.2025 is neither an erroneous one nor inconvenient for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is required to attend all the Police Stations concerned as per the orders of the learned 3 Jurisdictional Magistrates and also this Court by wandering to all the Police Stations of the District whenever and wherever necessary and it is urged to dismiss the Application. 7. This Court on 18.08.2025 while granting bail to the Petitioner imposed several conditions. The relevant conditions which are under deliberations are as under: "vii. The Appellant/accused No.4 shall make his presence before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 AM and 5.00 PM till the filing of Charge sheet; viii. The Appellant/accused No.4 shall not enter the limits of Nellore District until the completion of the entire investigation and filing of charge sheet;” 8. Indeed, as per the above two conditions, the Petitioner is required to make his presence before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday and after completion of that condition he was not supposed to enter into the limits of the Nellore District until the completion of the entire investigation and filing of chargesheet. 9. However, it was not brought to the notice of this Court either by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner nor by the learned Public Prosecutor at the time of pronouncing the judgment in the Criminal Appeal about several conditions imposed in various orders by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrates in several crimes pending against the Petitioner in Nellore District. 10. In fact, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.358/2025 on 11.08.2025 passed an order in Cr.No.3/2025 of CID 4 Police Station, Mangalagri that the Petitioner shall appear before the CID Police Station, Nellore on every Monday. It is also not in dispute that there are altogether 14 cases, including the present case, registered against the Petitioner. In those cases, conditional bails were granted to the petitioner requiring him to assist the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer. If such conditions are imposed in several cases, it would indeed be difficult for the Petitioner to comply with condition No.viii imposed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.08.2025. That apart, learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), (FAC) Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur on 28.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.285/2025 in C.C.No.528/2024 at para No.17 in column No.(v), directed the Petitioner not to leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate until three months or until filing of additional chargesheet, whichever is earlier. This order of the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate was also not brought to the notice of this Court either by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner or by the learned Public Prosecutor while pronouncing the judgment dated 18.08.2025 in Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 by this Court. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that there are five more cases in which the Investigating Officers concerned has issued notices contemplated under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ [Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’] that the Petitioner is required to co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required. 5 12. Considering the entire gamut and the facts and circumstances of the case and conditions imposed in all the pending cases against the Petitioner in Nellore District, condition No.viii passed in judgment dated 18.08.2025 in Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 is required to be relaxed to the effect that the Petitioner shall not leave the limits of the Nellore District till filing of the charge sheet or until three months from this day, whichever is earlier. 13. Accordingly, condition No.viii is modified as under: “viii. The Petitioner shall not leave the limits of the Nellore District without prior permission from the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned for a period of three months or until filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier.” 14. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is disposed of. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 01.09.2025 VTS