APHC010525632024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8443/2024 Between: 1. BADE VENKATA RAMANJANEYULU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. KOSURIVARIPAIEM, MOPIDEVI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATI, THROUGH THE SHO, CHALLAPALLI POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. KOSURU SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. KOSURUVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MOPIDEVI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. BHUPATHI RAMA LAKSHMANA SWAMY RAMU, S/O. GIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. VISWANADHAPALLI KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. SYKAM NARENDRA, S/O. GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. GANGADIPALEM VILLAGE, REPALLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. TIRUMALASETTI DANIYELU, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O. LANKEVANIDIBBA VILLAGE, REPALLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 6. SYKAM VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O. PALLIPALEM, H/O. PULIGADDA VILLAGE, 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8443 of 2024 Dated 24.02.2026 AVANIGADDA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7. TAMMU SRIKRISHNA, S/O. RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O SORLAGONDI VILLAGE, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. KANNA SURESH BABU, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. VISWANADHAPALLI VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 02.07.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.8443 OF 2024. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. P SARASWATHI 4. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking a direction to cancel the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 to 7/Accused Nos.1,2 and 4 to 8 vide order dated 08.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.175 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge for 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8443 of 2024 Dated 24.02.2026 trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam FAC VI Additional Sessions Judge (Crime No.373 of 2024 of Challapalli Police Station) as early as possible. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and also learned legal aid counsel for the other respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner filed petition under section 483(3) of ‘the BNSS’ seeking for cancellation of bail granted to the unofficial respondents by the Trial Court on 08.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.175 of 2024 in Crime No.373 of 2024 of Challapalli, Police Station. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the accused were involved in a double murder case. However, the learned Trial Court hastily enlarged the unofficial respondents on bail even before completion of the statutory period of 90 days and urged this Court to allow the petition. Alternatively, he submitted that a direction may be issued to the learned Committal Magistrate to complete the committal proceedings and further direct the learned Sessions Judge to complete the trial within a reasonable period of time. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8443 of 2024 Dated 24.02.2026 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the respondents and also the learned legal aid counsel for the other respondents submit that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is well considered and certain conditions were also imposed while granting bail. Thereafter, at no point of time the unofficial respondents/accused violated any of the conditions of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner and some of the accused are relatives and there are certain family disputes between them. Therefore, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 6. The proposed respondent No.8 is impleaded as Respondent No.8 in this case as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh and Others v. Ashish Mishra . 7. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajwar v. Waseem1 wherein at Para No.26 and 27, it is held as under: “26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of U.P. (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 1(2024) 10 SCC 768 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8443 of 2024 Dated 24.02.2026 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129 Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118. 27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P. v. State of M.P. [P. v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24) ‘24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.’” 8. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajwar v. Waseem supra held that, while granting bail in serious offences, the Court must consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role of the accused, criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or absconding. It further held that cancellation of bail should not be done mechanically, but can be warranted if the order granting bail is perverse, unreasoned, or ignores material facts. Even in the absence of misuse of bail, cancellation is permissible in cases involving serious allegations. Additionally, superior courts may interfere where relevant 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8443 of 2024 Dated 24.02.2026 material is overlooked or the gravity of the offence is not duly considered. Interference is also justified where supervening circumstances or the conduct of the accused render continuation of bail detrimental to a fair trial. 9. The younger son of the deceased is the de facto complainant. Accused No.3 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and Accused No.2 is the nephew of the deceased. It appears that there are certain family disputes with regard to the property. Though it is borne out from the record that Accused No.4 is involved in a double murder case, as seen from the remand report, the same by itself is not a sole ground for cancellation of the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge to the respondents/accused. 10. On perusal of the entire record, the learned Trial Court, on 08.11.2024, granted bail to Accused Nos.1 to 7 and imposed certain stringent conditions. It has not been reported either by the prosecution or by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents/accused have violated any of the conditions imposed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is well considered and there are no perversities in the same. The charge sheet was filed after thorough investigation and the case is presently at the committal stage. However, the PRC has not yet 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8443 of 2024 Dated 24.02.2026 been numbered. The alleged offence took place in the year 2024 and much water has flown under the bridge since then. Hence, there are no merits in the petition, and accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to the learned Committal Magistrate to complete the committal proceedings and further direct the learned Sessions Judge to complete the trial within a reasonable period of time. 12. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 2, at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under: “(10) It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The Supreme Court of USA too has repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-limitin spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit ineffectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.” 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P3 at paragraph No.32 held as under: “32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including 2(1992) 1 SCC 225 3AIROnline 2024 SC 143 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8443 of 2024 Dated 24.02.2026 High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.” 14. However, since the crime is of the year 2024 and the case has not yet been committed to the learned Sessions Judge, a direction is required to be issued to the learned Magistrate to commit the case to the learned Sessions Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Upon such committal, the learned Sessions Judge of the concerned Sessions Division shall either try the case himself or make over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge within the Sessions Division. Upon such assignment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial). 15. As seen from the record, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the committal proceedings in Crime No.373 of 2024 of Challapalli Police Station on the file of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. 16. It is observed that the practice of giving directions to the learned Trial Courts fixing the schedule for disposal of the cases were deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad supra. However, the right to speedy disposal is 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8443 of 2024 Dated 24.02.2026 one of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, is directed to expedite the process of committal proceedings in Crime No.373 of 2024 of Challapalli Police Station as expeditiously as possible, and the learned Sessions Judge of the concerned Sessions Division shall either try the case himself or make over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge within the Sessions Division. Upon such assignment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial). 18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.02.2026 PBS