APHC010111382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT /' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5520 OF 2025 Between: Pununi Goutham Reddy, S/o. Late P, Subba Rama Reddy, Male, aged about 68 years R/o. D. No. 23-2-10, Bhagat Singh Road, Satyanarayanapu ram, Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati 2. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 3. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, NTR District 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, and Investigation Officer, North Division, Vijayawada Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada City, NTR District 5. The Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada City, NTR District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the th action of 4 Respondent in issuing impugned Proceedings / Notice Dt. 28.0Z.Z025 imposing onerous conditions particularly restricting the movement of Petitioner from Vijayawada to any other State in India as illegal, arbitraiy, violative of Article 14, 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to restrict the movement of Petitioner from Vijayawada to anywhere in India and also not to harass him by implementing the illegal conditions mentioned in impugned Proceedings / Notice Dt. 28.02.2025. lA NO; 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Proceedings/Notice Dt. 28.02.2025 of 4'^ Respondent pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: The Assistant Commissioner of Police, and Investigation Officer, North Division, Vijayawada Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada City, NTR District ...PETITIONER AND 1. Pununi Goutham Reddy, S/o. Late P. Subba Rama Reddy, Male, aged R/o. D.No.23210, Bhagat Singh Road, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh. about 68 years. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati 3. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 4. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, NTR District 5. The Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada City, NTR District. (Respondent No.2 to 5 are formal parties in this Petition) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed on 05.03.2025 in W.P.No.5520 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. V. ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: C' APHC010111382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] r^^ FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5520/2025 Between; ■ I GOUTHAM REDDY, S/0. LATE P SUBBA RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/0. D. NO. 23-2-10, BHAGAT SINGH SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, 1.PUNUNURU MALE, ROAD ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL department SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARY HOME AMARAVATI OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DISTRICT 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AND INVESTIGATION NORTH 4.THE ASSISTANT OFFICER, COMMISSIONERATE VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DISTRICT POLICE VIJAYAWADA DIVISION 5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SATYANARAYANAPURAM PS. VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S); I/2II WP No 5520 of 2025 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the , circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomaybe pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUSdeclaring the action of 4th Respondent in issuing impugned Proceedings / Notice Dt. 28.02.2025 more imposing onerous conditions particularly restricting the movement of Petitioner ffom Vijayawada to any other State in India as illegal, arbitraiy, violative of Article 14, 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to restrict the movement of Petitioner from Vijayawada to anywhere in India and also not to harass him by implementing the illegal conditions mentioned in impugned Proceedings / Notice Dt. 28.02.2025or to not pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated i : the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased maybe pleased to SUSPEND the impugned Proceedings / Notice Dt. 28.02.2025of 4* Respondent pending disposal of the present Writ Petition order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit equity, and justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased vacate the interim orders passed on 05.03.2025 in W.P.No.5520 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.Y VANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S); TCP FOR HOME The Court made the following: in or to pass such proper and necessary in the interest of HSU WP.No.5520 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.552Q of 2025 ORDER; 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice/proceeding s dated 28.02.2025, whereby the 4'*^ respondent has imposed the following bail conditions for enlarging the petitioner on bail ; i. The accused must not leave the Vijayawada city without prior intimation to the investigating officer and shall obtain prior permission from the Court to leave the state or country, ii. The accused must report to the police station every Monday between 11:00 AM and 4:00 PM or as directed, iii. The accused must not contact the complainant, victim, or witnesses, either directly or indirectly, iv. The accused must fully cooperate with the investigation, appear before the police whenever required, and provide all necessary information as requested by the investigating officer. V. The accused shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence officials handling the case, vi. The accused must refrain from making social medial posts or public statements related to the case. 2. Sri.Y.V.Ravi Prasad, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in Crime No.364 of 2024 for alleged offences under Section 309 (2), 109(2), 61 (2),49, 332(b) and 333 of BNS. It is also submitted that the petitioner is implicated in several cases and that the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and filed SLP (Crl.)No.18172 of 2025. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 11.12.2024, granted anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.364 of 2024 registered with Satyanarayanapuram Police Station of Vijayawada II AH WP.No,5520 of 2025 City subject to certain terms and conditions as the investigating officer may deem fit lo impose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further obsen/ed that the petitioner shall cooperate with investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required for the purpose of interrogation, A further direction to the petitioner not to influence any of the prosecution any hindrances in the further investigation of the witnesses and not create alleged offence. 4. The learned senior counsel further submits that the 4'^ respondent while enlarging the petitioner on bail had imposed certain conditions 28.02.2025. He further submits that the condition on prohibiting the petitioner from leaving Vijayawada city without prior intimation to the investigating officer and obtaining permission from the Court to leave the State or Country is onerous. It is submitted that the petition in the event he intends to attend the High Court intimate the police, as the High Court is situated beyond the city limits of Vijayawada and that in the event the petitioner has to High Court of Telangana, he would have to Court. er is an advocate, and also, he would have to appear before the seek the permission of the 5. It IS also submitted that the petitioner is a heart patient and his children residing in Hyderabad and for visiting them, the petitioner would essentially have to intimate the 4‘^ respondent and also obtain Court. are permission from the //D/' WP.No.5520 of 2025 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the conditions are imposed, as the investigating officer deemed fit to impose such conditions to ensure the petitioners cooperation for investigation. 7. It is submitted that considering the gravity of the situation, the 4"^ respondent has imposed certain conditions and that the petitioner is only required to intimate the investing officer about his proposed travel outside Vijayawada city. 8. The learned Senior counsel submits that the Section 482 of BNSS would not entitle the police to impose such conditions. The condition relating to obtaining permission from the Court for leaving the state or country is not imposed by the Court in the crime. This condition is imposed by the police and the same cannot be imposed on the Court as if it is the condition of Court. 9. The submission that the petitioner is required to report to the police station on every Monday between 11.00AM and 04.00PM is an equally onerous condition. The learned senior counsel submits that though the crime was registered on 06.11.2024 and the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 28.02.2025, there has been absolutely no progress in investigation. As such, prays the Court to set aside the bail conditions imposed by the 4'^^ respondent. WP.No.5520 of 2025 10. This Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 stayed the operation of condition No.1. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the state has filed a counter and also filed a vacate petition. It is submitted that the respondent is opposed the dispensation of condition No.1 primarily on the ground that the petitioner has a criminal history and that the petitioner is accused in as many as 48 criminal cases. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation and that he is intimidating the investigating officer and the other police officers and showing blatant disregard for the law. 11. The learned senior counsel place reliance on Frank Vitus Vs Narcotics Control Bureau and others^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 10 and 10.1 of the order held as follows ; 10. This Court, in the case of State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, reiterated the settled position by holding as follows: 22. Right to life is one of the basic human rights. It is guaranteed to every person by Article 21 of the Constitution and not even the State has the authority to violate that right. A prisoner, be he a convict or undertrial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being. Even when lodged in the jail, he continues to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed to him under the Constitution. On being convicted of crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law, prisoners still retain the residue of constitutional rights. (emphasis supplied) 10.1 We are dealing with a case of the accused whose guilt is yet to be established. So long as he is not held guilty, the presumption of innocence is applicable. He cannot be deprived of all his rights guaranteed under Article 21. The Courts must show restraint while imposing bail conditions. Therefore, while granting bail, the Courts can curtail the freedom of the accused only to the extent required for (2024) 8 see 415 VVl^ imposing the bail conditions warranted by law. Bail conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself. For e-n^ple^ he Court may impose a condition of periodically reporting •“ Station/Court or not travelling abroad without prior permission. Where circumstances require, the Court may impose a condition restraining an accused from entering a particular area to protect the P^osecu^" witnesses or the victims. But the Court cannot impose ^ condition on the accused to keep the Police constantly informed about his movement from one place to another. The object cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movemen s of Ih® enlarged on bail. The investigating agency cannot be pe mitted to continuously peep into the private life of VlpTohf of bail by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right o pnvac^ of L accused, as guaranteed by Article 21, If a -n® “ 9^ kept on every movement of the accused released on bail by th use of technology or othenwise, it will infringe the rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 21, including the right 1° The reason is that the effect of keeping such constant vigil on the accused by imposing drastic bail conditirtns will the accused in some kind of confinement even after he is release bail. Such a condition cannot be a condition of bai . counsel for the petitioner IS on and the learned 12. Heard the learned senior Pleader for the State. Perused the record Government whether the respondent was justified 13. The short point for consideration is conditions for grant of bail and whether such conditions are in imposing the which frustrate the order of bail itself. onerous bail to the petitioner left it to the and conditions as been fit The Hon’ble Supreme Court while granting 14. discretion of the 4'^ respondent to impose terms Conditions 3 to 6 imposed by the 4^^ respondent are more or to impose. of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order less intune with the observations SLP(Crl.) 18172 of 2024, dated 21.01.2025. to the condition No.1 imposed by the A- respondent, the A'" from the at paras 16 and 17 in 15. Now, coming respondent mandating the petitioner to obtain prior permission WP No.5520 of 2025 Court to leave the State Country is concerned imposed by the Court, as such the petitioner or such a condition is not cannot be directed to seek permission of the Court for leaving out of State Country. The 4 or respondent cannot superimpose the condition Court to discharge the judicial petitioner to the i on the Court and expect the function by reporting compliance investigating officer. Such conditions of the cannot be imposed by the police and the power to impose such conditions always vest with the Courts. 16. Coming to the condition police station No.2 mandating the petitioner to report to the every Monday between 11.00AM directed is concerned, it is not in dispute that the i complete inspite of lapse of eight on and 04.00PM or as investigation is not yet months from the date of registration of crime and six months from the date of dispute that the petitioner i reporting to police station 04.00PM would interfere with the grant bail to the petitioner. It is not in IS a practicing advocate and the condition of on every Monday between 11.00AM professional obligations of the and petitioner, to appear for his clients and discharge Court(s) of law. As such, the condition As the petitioner would have duty as their counsel before the No.2 deserves to be relaxed. 17. The submission of the learned counter that the petitioner is cases pending against him i his Government Pleader by referring a habitual offender and that there IS not supported by any details relating to the to the are 48 WP.No 5520 of 2025 crimes registered against the petitioner. The State has also not filed any document or the list of cases pending against the petitioner. In so far as Crime No.364 of 2024 is concerned, the petitioner is enlarged on bail and it is not the case of the 4‘^ respondent that the petitioner had violated the conditions of bail granted in any other offences. Mere statement that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation is cannot be relied upon by this Court. The 4'^ respondent has not placed any document on record to substantiate the allegations at para No.7 of the counter. 18. On these grounds, the writ petition is allowed in-part, condition Nos.1 and 2 imposed in the impugned proceedings dated 28.02.2025 are hereby set aside. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-K J-RAJABABU assistant ^ISTRAR !/ SECTION OFnCER //TRUE COPY// To, Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati 2. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 3. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, NTR District 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, and Investigation Officer, North Vijayawada Police Commissionerate Vijayawada City, NTR 1. The Division, District 5. The Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada City, NTR District 6. One CC to Sri Y. V. Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. A A HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER WP No. 5520 OF 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS