lN THE HIGH COURT-OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT Jr THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTY FIVE Z TzHg#O :PRESENT: \\ NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9769OF2024 z= Between : `Murari Subramanya Ganga Rao, S/o. Late Lakshminarayana Age 41 years`l R/o B-1, Jewel Apartment, Peda Rushikonda Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam CI'ty, Native of Flat No.401, Arjuna Manor, 8th Cross Road, S.N.Bank Colony, Vijayawada, N,T.R District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati-Through the Station House Officer PM Plaem police Station, Visakhapatn'am District ~ .,.Respondent/Complainant i petition under sectionS`' 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Sessi6ns Judge, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P. No. 209 of 2024 (e-Courts Crl.M.P.No.1749 of 2024) in Crime No. 59/2024 of P.M.I- Palem Police Station and direct to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No. 59 of 2024-of PM Palein Police Station, Visakhapatnam District in t'he interest of justice. gr¢,/ The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds fil-ed in support thereof and upon hearing the` arguments of SRI KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent; I 0601662024 HE] lN THE- HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH I- AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE - PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9769/2024 Between : Murari Subramanya Ganga Rao u.PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND T.he State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Peti1:ioner/accused: . 1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBL®lC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: This Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS, has I been filed by the petitioner/accused against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed in crI.M-P No.209 of 2024 (e-Courts CrI.M.P.No.1749 of 2024 in Crime No.59 -of 2024 of P,M.Palem Polic'e Station) by the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard learned counsel for the'petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record. 3. Originally, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.59 of 2024 of P.M. Palem Police Station, for the offence punishable / I- I '' .2 v under Section 302 lPC. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a baI'l application, vide Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.342 of 2024, arising out of Crime No.59 of 202-4. By an order dated 14.05.2024, the learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, granted bail to the petitl'oner herein, subject to the following conditions. "1. The petitioner/accused is directed to be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 30,00or with two local sureties for the like sum each. 2. The.petitioner/accused and his proposed sureties are obliged to inform this Court the change of their addresses if any in future- 3. The petitioner/accused shall not threaten the prosec`ution witnesses. 4. The petitioner/accused shall9 CO-operate With the investigation agency." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner/accused and the witnesses in the present crime are employees of the same company. Following the releas-e of the petitioner herein, he made telephone calls to the witn5sses solely to enquire about his belongings. 5. Notwithstanding the aforementioned facts, the state filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.209 of 2024 for the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner herein, on the ground that,the call records of the accused reveal frequent conversations with mobile numbers belonging to the witnesses, namely L.W.37 and L.W.40. It is alleged that if the accused remains out on bail, there is a significant likelihood of him attempting to influence the witnesses, either through inducement or threat, as well as the possibility of tampering with the evidence. 6. ln view of the aforementioned reasons, the I-earned sessions Judge allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.209 6f 2024 and t cancelled the statutory ball granted to the acJ9uSed --, \=={-.--`_ =,3=#C- 7. ln Support Of hiS Case, the lea6rned counsel for{he petitioner relied r/ on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme C+6urt in H,-manshu Sharma Vs. sfafe offlfadhya prac'esh7, wherein it is observed thus. "Law.is well settled by a catena of juclgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cance!Iatibn thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if-the Court is satisfied that after being released on ba/./,. (a) The accused has ngisused the liberty granted to him; I (b) FIouted the conditions of bail order; (c) That the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting.the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) Or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud." 8. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the condition imposed on the petitioner was that he shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. Based on the material available, it is difficult to conclude that the petitioner threatened the witnesses. ln the absence of statements from LW.37 and L.W.40, this Court is of the view that the sessions Judge was not justified in concluding that the accused influenced the witnesses through phone calls. A{ the very least, the Investigation Officer should have made enquiries regarding the context of the phone calls. lt appears that the prosecution has filed the application for cancellation of bail solely based on the call data. Regardin-g the phone call conversations, the petitionerJs version is that he is a former employee of an associate firm of V-Nirman Company, with employees common to both entities. He contends that during the telephonic conversations, he did not discuss'any aspect of the case, but only enquired about his belongings, such as wearing apparel and utensils etc., which remained in his apartment, as well as his pending salary allowances from th6 said company. when such a specific stand has bLeen taken by the_ Petitioner, it Seems that the Investigation Officer failed to verify the accuracy of this version. [n light of these facts; this court is I (2024)4 SCC222 /- 4 of the view that, without making'any efforts to record the witnesses' statements, the prosecution has moved `the application for the cancellation of bail based solely on the call data records. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner herein threatened the prosecution witnesses. ln the absence of such material, the learned sessions Judge was not justified in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. 9, In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the Case, the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed in CrI.M.P.No.209 of 2024 (e- Courts CrI.M.P.No.1749 of 2024 in Crime No.59 of 2024 of P.M,Palem Police Station) by the learned Sessions Judge, VisakhaPatnam, iS hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be released On bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/_ (Rupees fifty Thousand Only), with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, BhemmuniPatnam. Upon release, the petitioner shall appear before the station House Officer concerned once every fortnight for a period of two (2) `iquonthS. The petitioner Shall not hamper the investigation, tamper with the prosecution witnesses and contact the prosecution witnesses. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is a//OWed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, Shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ?exifehatlhrty------o~-ch£ /. AssJSTAN sD/- K. KASIRAO r\ -_ #GJS TR-i'; ACIHARl fa EF_,'c_:: I/. oJ1. The Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2. The XVI Additional_ Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Vl'sakhapatnam District 4. The Station House OffI'Cer, PM Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District 5. One CC to SRI. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh I [OUT] 7| Onesparecopy --i.i , ~... PSR •> 1 \ ` -..`-_ --1`+. .``-. HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED :24/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9769 of 2024 ALLOWED J*/ -ct-I-