APHC010649852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1970/2026 Between: KALAKATA VEERAMOHAN REDDY, S/O.K.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.No.25-7, THATIMAKULAPALYAM ROAD, PUNGANUR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT PRESENTLY ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNGANUR URBAN POLICE STATION. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P.V.VENKATA RAVI SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), by the Petitioner / Accused seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.3 of 2026 on the file of Punganur Urban Police Station, Chittoor District which is registered for the offence under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in precise, is that the De facto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and that on 03.01.2026, her father received a phone call that her father-in-law died. Then she went there and came to know that the Accused and the deceased were having disputes with regard to the gold ornaments of her mother-in-law and in that connection, on 03.01.2026 at about 4.30 p.m., the Accused quarrelled with the deceased, picked up a stone and hit on the head of the deceased due to which he died on the spot. 3. Heard Sri P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the De facto complainant, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, having matrimonial disputes with the family of the deceased, has been residing at her parental home in Palamaner for the past several years and was not present at Punganur at the relevant time. Learned counsel would further submit that the alleged incident occurred on 03.01.2026 at 5:00 PM, whereas the De facto complainant reached the scene only at 7:30 PM and lodged the complaint belatedly on 04.01.2026 at 9:00 PM. No complaint was made by any immediate relative of the deceased on the date of the alleged incident, which raises grave suspicion about the genuineness of the complaint. Learned counsel further contends that the RFSL report dated 29.01.2026 clearly weakens the prosecution case. It categorically states that no blood was detected on the material objects and the soil sample could not 3 be determined. There is no conclusive proof linking any alleged blood sample to the deceased. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant has already initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as a Domestic Violence Case, against the deceased and his family members including the Petitioner, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has already granted relief to the Petitioner and other accused by dispensing with their personal appearance. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was suffering from multiple serious health conditions, including diabetes, cardiac ailments, and had undergone multiple surgeries over the years. In view of his health condition, the deceased might have fallen somewhere and got head injury and die. The Petitioner is not at all responsible for the death of the deceased. The complaint has been lodged with an intention to falsely implicate the Petitioner, to settle personal disputes, including claims over family property and gold ornaments. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner has two small children and old aged parents and he has to look after them. Petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Hence, prayed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor though submits that the investigation in the present crime has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed, opposed the petition and contends that this is a grave offence 4 of murder committed by a deliberate and brutal head assault with a stone, clearly indicating intention to kill. It is further submitted that the case is supported by the testimonies of eyewitness, establishing the presence and involvement of the Petitioner. The motive behind the offence is, dispute over gold ornaments and the same is well established. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the post- mortem report confirms death due to head injury with hemorrhagic shock. The delay in lodging the complaint is natural and satisfactorily explained given the circumstances. The minor forensic inconsistence cannot supersede strong ocular and medical evidence. The defence theory of accidental death or ill- health is baseless and contrary to the medical evidence. As charge sheet is being filed, there is likelihood of witness tampering or intimidation if bail is granted. 6. Considering the rival submissions advanced on either side and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are grave and serious in nature. The record, at this stage, reveals the presence of prima facie material indicating the involvement of the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. In particular, the statements of eyewitnesses, which constitute direct ocular evidence, coupled with the post-mortem report clearly indicating that the death occurred due to a head injury. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding delay in lodging the complaint, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, 5 cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution at this preliminary stage. Similarly, the reliance placed on the RFSL report by the defence cannot be examined in depth at this juncture so as to discredit the prosecution version. The contention of the Petitioner that the death was accidental or attributable to ill-health, cannot be adjudicated conclusively in proceedings for grant of bail. 8. It is also pertinent to note that, mere filing of the charge sheet does not automatically entitle an Accused to regular bail. The settled position of law is that filing of the charge sheet is only one of the factors to be considered and cannot override other material considerations such as the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence collected, and the likelihood of the Accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. In this regard, in its recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan etc.,1, while cancelling the bail granted to the Accused in a murder case, held as follows: “20.4.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. 20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court categorically held that "The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail. ... non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order..." 20.4.3. In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (supra), this Court held that the possibility of the accused absconding or threatening witnesses had 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 6 a direct bearing on the fairness of the trial. In serious offences, such apprehensions – when reasonably supported by record – must weigh against the grant of bail. 24. On a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120B, and 34 IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions of legally relevant facts. Moreover, the High Court undertook an extensive examination of witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and delays – issues that are inherently matters for the trial Court to assess through cross- examination. The trial Court alone is the appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility and reliability of witnesses. Granting bail in such a serious case, without adequate consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused’s role, and the tangible risk of interference with the trial, amounts to a perverse and wholly unwarranted exercise of discretion. The well-founded allegations of witness intimidation, coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence, further reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail. Consequently, the liberty granted under the impugned order poses a real and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice and risks derailing the trial process. In light of these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the present case calls for the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.” 9. In the light of the above judgment and considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the evidence collected during investigation, and the specific apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the Petitioner influencing witnesses if enlarged on bail in the present case, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise the discretion in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:18.03.2026 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.1970 of 2026 Dt.18.03.2026 Dinesh