'Wi IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI^,^^^"'' THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10158 OF 2025 ite© c; y.- S' ??»•?« ! 'U-V •-‘i" ✓ I ,i Between: Gonnuru Seemaiah(A12), S/o. Venkateswara Rao Aged about 47 Occ- Ex- Sarpanch, R/o.Harizanawada Bazar, Nagavarapadu village, Ungutur Mandal,Krishna District. years, ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the SHO-Gannavaram Police Station Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Kasaraneni Ranga Babu alias Venkata Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o.Venkat Ratnam, Aged about 60 years,Occ- Business, R/o. Gannavaram Village and Mandal, Krishna District. .... Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dt. 07-01-2025 in CrI. M.P. No. 1744 of 2024 in Cr. No. 42 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble VIII Additional i Judicial First-Class Magistrate, at Gannavaram against the petitioner/ Accused no. 12. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt. 07-01-2025 in CrI. M.P. No. 1744 of 2024 in Cr. No. 42 of 2024 on the file of the VIII Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, at Gannavaram against the petitioner/ Accused no. 12, , Pending disposal of CRLP 10158 of 2025, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Advocate for the Petitioner, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, the Court made the following. ORDER APHC010506512025 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: 10158/2025 Between; 1.GONNURU SEEMAIAH(A12), , S/0. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC- EX- SARPANCH, R/O.HARIZANAWADA BAZAR, NAGAVARAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTUR MANUAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUS^D AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE SHO-GANNAVARAM POLICE STATION REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.KASARANENI RANGA BABU ALIAS VENKATA PANDU RANGA RAO, S/O.VENKAT RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,OCC- BUSINESS, R/0. GANNAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANUAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.KOTI REDDY.IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent/complalnant{S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya* Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), challenging the 2 order dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1744 of 2024 in Cr.No.42/2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-VIII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gannavaram wherein the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the Petitioner/Accused No. 12. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court on the particular date because he was suffering from ill health. It is further submitted that merely because the Petitioner could not attend the learned Trial iCourt on one day is not a ground to cancel bail application. Learned Couhsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana^ and Krishna Sharma t 1 Alias Krishna Kumar Sharma v. The State of West BengaP. Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioner failed to attend before the learned Trial Court on a particular date. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly cancelled the bail. The order doesn’t suffer from any illegality or irregularity and urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. Learned Assistant Publid Prosecutor further submits there was a specific condition imposed on the Petitioner while he was enlarged on baij by the learned Trial Court that he should attend on every Tuesday and Friday for 90 days or till the filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. * 1 Thoughtful consideration, is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused'the entire record. 3. 4. 5. M1995)1 see 349 ^MANU/SeOR/l 3897/2024 3 6. The Hon ble Apex Court in Dolat Ram’s case supra at para No.4 held as under;' 4. Rejection qf bail in a nqn-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to,be considered and dealt different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances for an order directing the cancellation of the bail with on are necessary ,. already granted. Generally * speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, ^ broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due cniir.se of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due cour.se of lustice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused ih ^ „ any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the ■ cancellation of bail. However bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considerino whether any supervenino circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the tnal. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when It decided to cancel-jhe bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non- bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. ” us 1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Kurnar Sharma’s case supra at para No.5 held as Linder: “5. Howeve,r we find that merely because the appellant did not appear - personally could not have been a ground for cancellation of bail. The ‘ parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of'bail are totally different The bail already granted may be cancelled, if it is found that the person who has been granted the benefit of bail has violated any of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence. ” Admittedly the day on which the impugned order was passed happen tg be a Tuesday. The period prescribed by the learned Trial Court was also not expired. However, the Petitioner was unable to attend before the learned Trial Court on only one day and that too because of his ill health. The learned ^ ft Magistrate has not sought for the reason for non-appearance of the Petitioner on the given day. • ■ 8. 9. In respect of Accused No.9, this Court passed an order in Crl.P.No.5567 pf 2025 on 01.08.2025, setting aside the order with a direction to the Petitioner 4 therein to appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required and 1 ' failure to attend before the learned Trial Court in the next date of hearing, the learned Trial Court may proceed in accordance with law In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition IS allowed, the order dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1744 of 2024 in I Cr.No.42/2024 on thp file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-VIII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gannavaram is I set aside with a specific direction to the Petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. Failure to' attend before the learned Trial Court in the next d'ate of hearing, the learned Trial Court accordance with law. 10. may proceed in Sd/-B.CHITTI JOSEPH DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, The VIII Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, at Gannavaram. Kasaraneni Ranga Babu alias Venkata Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o.Venkat Ratnam, Aged about 60 years,Occ- Business, R/o. Gannavaram Village and Mandal, Krishna District, (by RPAD) One CC to SRI. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One spare copy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. KSR I HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED;25/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10158 of 2025 ALLOWED