APHC010015112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 715/2025 Between: 1. G CHANDRAMOHAN, S/O G. KRISTAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 21-1-64,BC COLONY, MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATHI. 2. RAMANJINEYULU, S/O G. ASWARTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 24-1-86, BC COLONY, MOTHUKAPALLI HINDUPUR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 3. G PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. G. RAMANJINEYULU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 24-1-86, BC COLONY, MOTHUKAPALLI HINDUPUR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT (S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to 1. Cancel the Bail granted to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents by setting aside the impugned order dated 01-11- 2024, passed by II Add. District and Session judge Hindupur in CrI.M.P. No. 222/2024 in Cr.No. 215/2024 of Hindupur I Town PS. 10. 2. Pass necessary order/direction thereby directing to arrest 2nd and 3rd respondents/ 2 accused1&3 in FIR No. 215/2024 of Hindupur I Town PS and to send him to custody. 3. Pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KOTHA LEELA GANESH RAGHAVENDRA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 715/2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Complainant, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos. 1 and 3 by setting aside the impugned Order dated 01.11.2024 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur, in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2024 in Cr.No.215 of 2024 of Hindupur I Town Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 118(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS. 2. Heard Sri Kotha Leela Ganesh Raghavendra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Sri Kale Vijaya Raju, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/Accused Nos. 1 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the Accused Nos. 1 and 3, got enlarged on regular bail vide Order dated 01.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2024 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the victim in this case, suffered grievous injuries. The Respondents were released on bail considering the case for the offence punishable under Section 118(1) of BNS. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the accused Nos. 1 and 3 started harassing the complainant by threatening to withdraw the case. Learned 4 counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that they have submitted their grievance to the Superintendent of Police, Satya Sai District. Learned counsel for the Petitioner finally prays for cancellation of bail. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/Accused Nos. 1 and 3, have been complying with the conditions imposed by this Court and that she has no instructions regarding the complaint which was submitted to the Superintendent of Police under the Public Grievance Redressal System by the Petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that let there be an appropriate direction to the Police to attend the complaint of the Petitioner in this matter. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would submit that absolutely there are no grounds for cancellation of the bail, since it is not a case of violation of conditions imposed while granting bail to the Respondents. He would further submit that he has no instructions regarding the compliant which was submitted by the Petitioner to the Superintendent of Police under grievance, since the Petitioner failed to refer the same in the present petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact that seeking cancellation of bail and challenging the order granting bail on the ground of perversity or illegality are two distinct aspects. In the light of the representation made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, after their release on bail, have been complying with the conditions imposed by the 5 Court, this is not a case of cancellation of bail. The impugned order would clearly go to show that even with the Wound Certificate placed before the Court, bail was granted to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, since, it is represented that a complaint has been submitted to the Superintendent of Police under Public Grievance Redressal System by the Petitioner, it is apposite to dispose of the present petition, directing the Investigating Officer to look into such complaint and take appropriate course of action according to law, the reason being that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were released on bail under the premise that the case falls under Section 118(1) of BNS. Now it is represented that the victim suffered grievous injuries as per the Wound Certificate. 7. With the above said observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 18.02.2026. UPS 6 199 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 715/2025 Dt.18.02.2026 UPS