APHC010097092026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1509/2026 Between: SRI ALLA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE ALL DASARADHARAMI REDDY AGED 58 YEARS,OCC FORMER LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU, , S/O. KHARJURA NAIDU, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O. LINGAMANENI FLAT, KARAKATTA ROAD, UNDAVALLI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CID P.S., AMARAVATHI, MANGALAGIRI, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 483(2) AND 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent / Accused No.1 vide Order dated 10.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.7894 of 2023 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in connection with Crime No.16 of 2022 of CID 2 Police Station, Amaravati, Mangalagiri, Guntur District for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 34, 35, 36, 37, 166, 167 and 217 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C.Act’). 2. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, the present petition is hereby disposed of, at the stage of admission. 3. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Mukul Rohatgi and Sri Anurag Ahluwalia, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for CID. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, the investigation into the present crime has been belated, inconsistent, and raising a reasonable apprehension that Accused No.1/respondent has been influencing the investigative process, thereby undermining its credibility and fairness. Learned counsel would further submit that, since assuming office as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Accused No.1/respondent has effectively stalled the investigation despite the filing of a charge sheet, demonstrating undue influence and interfering with the independence of the investigative process. Learned counsel further contends that the allegations concern the Amaravati Capital City project, involving public funds, land pooling, and long- term planning. Any compromise in investigation directly affects public trust, fiscal accountability, and policy integrity, demanding an unbiased and credible inquiry. It is further submitted that Accused-8 has been involved in witness 3 tampering, evidence manipulation, and using undue influence through political connections. It is submitted that, Respondent / Accused No.1 being the Chief Minister of the State and appraiser of the Investigating Officer, influenced the Investigating Officer and made him to file closure report in the present crime, which is in violation of the conditions imposed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while granting anticipatory bail to Accused No.1 vide Order dated 10.01.2024 in Crl.P.No.7894 of 2023. Hence, prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Respondent / Accused No.1. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent / Accused opposed the petition and would submit that the present petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Respondent / Accused No.1, is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petition is bereft of reasons that Respondent / Accused No.1 abused the privilege of the anticipatory bail granted to him. The present petition arises out of a closure report filed by the Investigating Agency in the present crime, due to political vendetta. There are not tenable grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. It is well settled that anticipatory bail is a statutory protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cancellation of anticipatory bail is warranted only where there is a clear abuse of the liberty granted, a deliberate flouting of the conditions imposed, or a prima facie case demonstrating interference with the due process of law. Mere dissatisfaction with the investigation or speculative allegations of influence cannot form the basis for cancellation. 4 7. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Another1, while dealing with the petition for cancellation of bail, categorically held as follows: “30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening 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 trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana2 laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are :- (i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice (ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice (iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner (iv) Possibility of accused absconding (v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail (vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.” 8. In the case at hand, the Petitioner’s contention that the investigation has been belated or inconsistent does not, by itself, establish misuse of bail, as investigative delays may arise from multiple administrative or procedural reasons. Allegations regarding influence over the Investigating Officer are unsubstantiated, and no material evidence has been placed on record to show that the Respondent / Accused No.1 interfered in the investigation or directed 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562 2 (1995) 1 SCC 349 5 the closure report. Allegations of witness tampering and evidence manipulation by Accused-8 remain unproven at this stage. Further, the closure report filed by the Investigating Agency, even if politically sensitive, is a procedural outcome of the investigation and does not demonstrate that the Respondent / Accused No.1 has contravened any specific condition of the anticipatory bail granted by this Court. 9. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to supra, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any abuse of the liberty of anticipatory bail by Respondent / Accused No.1. The petition is primarily aimed at challenging the outcome of the investigation, which is not a ground to cancel anticipatory bail, and no condition of the anticipatory bail order has been shown to have been violated. There are no tenable grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent / Accused No.1. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:30.03.2026 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.1509 of 2026 Dt.30.03.2026 Dinesh