APHC010473512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9377/2025 Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, GOVERNMENT OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PAILA DILEEP ALIAS DILIP, S/O. ANANDA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, D.NO. 1-237, SEETHAPURAM, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH, NOW AT FLAT NO. 405, PALLAVA BLOCK, R.V. AVANENDRA APARTMENTS, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PATIL YUGANDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9377 of 2025 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent vide order dated 28.08.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.1184 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID and Sri Sanjai, learned counsel representing Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/accused No.30. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/State would submit that the learned Special Judge did not exercise his discretion from the proper perspective while releasing the petitioner on regular bail, especially considering that the case involves a huge scam and an economic offence. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned Judge ought not to have granted regular bail to the petitioner/accused No.30, as he is an associate of Accused No. 1 and is alleged to have participated in the conspiracy. Accused No. 1 remains in judicial custody. It is also submitted that the learned Special Judge considered the respondent’s third bail application without there being any change in circumstances. Learned Senior Counsel would further clarify that the present petition is not filed on the ground of misuse of liberty by the petitioner, but on the ground that the learned Special Judge failed to exercise his discretion in accordance with law. 3 4. Sri Sanjai, learned counsel representing Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the petition and submitted that the learned Special Judge has properly exercised judicial discretion in releasing the petitioner on regular bail. He further submitted that the matter concerns the liberty of an individual, and that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different aspects in the present case. He also submitted that the investigation has been completed and the police report has been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner has never misused the liberty granted by the Court. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and on a fair examination of the material placed on record, there is some force in the contentions raised by the State regarding the approach adopted by the learned Special Judge while granting regular bail to the petitioner, particularly when the main conspirator remains in custody. Be that as it may, the impugned order indicates that the investigation has been completed. Insofar as Accused No.30 is concerned, the police report has also been filed. Accused No.30 had been in judicial custody for 125 days by then. He had been recently married and has not misused the liberty granted to him. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, consideration for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different aspects. The Court can proceed to cancel regular bail only if the circumstances so warrant, such as when the order granting bail is found to be perverse and unsustainable in law. 6. As can be seen from the impugned order, the learned Special Judge exercised discretion on independent grounds in respect of this accused and 4 granted him liberty, which has not been misused by this time. There has been no non-compliance with the conditions imposed while granting bail to the individual. 7. In that view, the continuation of bail, insofar as this respondent/accused No.30 is concerned, shall depend on his conduct during the pendency of the proceedings. In the event of any violation of the conditions, the State is at liberty to seek appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State brought to the notice of this Court that, while exercising discretion to grant bail, the learned Special Judge had not imposed proper conditions on the petitioner. It is therefore considered to dispose of the application by directing the respondent/accused No.30 to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any grounds for cancellation of the bail and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the continuation of bail for the respondent/Accused No.30 shall depend upon his conduct and his cooperation with the investigation during the pendency of the proceedings. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:11.03.2026 KNN 5 231 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRLP.No.9377 of 2025 Dt.11.03.2026 KNN