APHC010587062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 11391 & 11392 of 2025 Crl.P.No.11391 of 2025 Between: 1.BALLAPURAM MUNI THUKARAM, S/O.MUNI VENKATAPPA,AGED 64 YEARS, OCC RETIRED TEACHER,PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 109,VASUNDARA APARTMENT, OPPD-MART, KARAKAMBADI ROADTIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through Madanapalle I Town Station,Annamayya District, rep. by its Public ProsecutorCB-CID,High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.RAJENDRA C Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.11392 of 2025 Between: 1.VANKIREDDY MADHAVA REDDY, S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC REAL ESTATE BUSINESS,R/O. D.NO. 2-50-F-15, REDDYS COLONY, 2 MADANAPALLE TOWNANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through Madanapalle I Town Police Station,Annamayya District, rep. by its Public ProsecutorCB- CID,High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.RAJENDRA C Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as they arise out of same crime but the Petitioners are different. 2. Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.135 of 2025 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 287, 326(g) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 3. Sri C.Rajendra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent. They have not committed any offence. They are law 3 abiding citizens. They were falsely implicated in this case. They have permanent abode. They would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge them on bail. Accused No.3 is follower of Ex-Minister, Accused No.4 is Personal Assistant to Ex-MLA and former Minister. Initially a notice contemplated under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ was issued and the Petitioners have scrupulously followed the conditions of the notice and cooperated with the investigation in all particulars. 4. Sri C.Rajendra, learned for Petitioners submits that the entire sequence of events, orders, and judicial pronouncements placed on record unmistakably demonstrate that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 has been under the continuous protective umbrella of this Court, and that at every stage the offences alleged have been categorically recognized as being punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, thereby attracting the salutary safeguards enshrined under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’. It is further urged that despite the Petitioner’s scrupulous compliance with notices issued under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ his voluntary appearance before the Investigating Officer, and his unequivocal cooperation with the investigation, the police have indulged in repeated attempts to effect coercive action, including impermissible second arrest in the same crime, thereby acting in derogation of the settled principles of law and in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel emphasizes that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 has neither absconded nor attempted to tamper with evidence, and his conduct throughout has been bona fide, as evidenced 4 by the multiplicity of proceedings wherein this Court has consistently interdicted coercive steps and recognized the petitioner’s entitlement to protection. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submits that custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor permissible, and that the petitioner, being ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed, is entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, so as to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 has been falsely implicated in Crime No.135 the incontrovertible fact that at the time of the alleged fire accident in the Sub- Collector’s office, he was not even present in India, having been in the United States for more than six months prior to the occurrence. It is urged that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 has consistently approached this Court through various proceedings, namely Crl.P.No.9036 of 2024, Crl.P.No.1916 of 2025, W.P.No.7435 of 2025, and Crl.P.No.10227 of 2025, wherein this Court has repeatedly recognized that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and has directed the investigating authorities to scrupulously comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that even the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner/Accused No.4 was suspended by this Court, thereby enabling his return to India to cooperate with the investigation, which he has done diligently by appearing before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon. Despite such bona fide cooperation, the police have indulged in 5 repeated harassment, attributing baseless allegations with political overtones, including attempts to link the petitioner’s long-standing property documents from 2001, 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2014 with a Government Order of 2023, which is legally untenable and demonstrative of mala fide intent. It is further submitted that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 has never absconded, has no intention to tamper with evidence, and has been continuously available for investigation, as evidenced by the series of judicial orders protecting him from coercive steps. In these circumstances, and in view of the settled law that custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor permissible in offences punishable with less than seven years, the learned counsel prays that this Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused No.4 in Crime No.135 of 2024, on such terms and conditions as deemed fit, so as to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. 6. The instant crime was registered for fire accident. A similar crime was also registered for the same offences. A learned Single Judge of this Court enlarged Accused No.1 on bail with certain stringent conditions. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.10227/2025 on 26.09.2025 directed the investigating officer not to take any coercive steps without following due process of law and that criminal petition is pending for consideration before another bench. A learned Single Judge of this Court in another Criminal Petition directed the Petitioner to cooperate with the investigating officer. Hence, the accused even though in abroad, had come to India and 6 cooperating with the investigating, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. 7. Per contra, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the Petitioners on the ground that originally case was registered as fire accident, later based on the statement of the witnesses and the CDR’s between the Accused, the Petitioners and some Accused were suspected to have committed the alleged offence. Forensic expert opinion gave report that the accident was not a mere fire accident, but it was a manmade fire accident. Accused No.1 contacted Accused No.3 frequently before the alleged offence. All the accused conspired and committed a huge land scam. In the house of Accused No.3 when search was conducted Six hundred and twelve (612) documents were found. Nearly 1500 pending files were subjected to burn. Ac.22,520 of land illegally freehold. Several witnesses spoke about the involvement of the Petitioners. The Petitioners threatened several landholders with dire consequences and took away their lands at throw away price. Sixty Three (63) documents were seized from the house of Accused No.3. Six Hundred (600) documents were made up files. There is substantial material available against the Petitioners establishing their involvement in this case. Accused No.3 has gone to an extent of threatening the Accused No.2 with dire consequences. Investigation is at progressive stage. If the Petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they would certainly interfere with the investigation process, hamper the evidence, tamper the investigation and also threaten the witnesses. Custodial 7 interrogation of the Petitioners is required to elicit further involvement of the Petitioners in the cases and urged to dismiss the bail applications in the interest of justice and progress of investigation. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 9. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 10. Initially, the Petitioners contacted this Court without directly approaching the learned Sessions Judge for pre-arrest bail. Therefore, this Court vide orders in Crl.P.No.9824/2024, 603/2025 and 633/2025 on 18.09.2025, disposed of the Criminal Petitions granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge for grant of pre-arrest bail at first instance. Accordingly, the Petitioners have approached the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, who by assigning elaborate reasons dismissed the petitions filed for grant of pre-arrest bail. Later the Petitioners filed the instant petitions for the same relief. 11. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.9036 of 2024 on 24.12.2024 directed the investigating officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ and also the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1 scrupulously, when an application was filed by 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 8 Accused No.4. In a similar application filed by Accused No.3, a similar order was also passed. 12. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.10227/2025, in a petition filed by Accused No.4 directed the investigating officer not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner without following the due process of law. However, on 05.11.2025, on the request made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor a learned Single Judge of this Court clarified that in view of the gravity and nature of the allegations that the order dated 26.09.2025 passed above would not come in the way of the investigating officer for proceeding against the Petitioner. Indeed, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Guptha v. State of U.P2 deprecated the practice of passing orders of not to take any coercive steps in quash petitions. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Diary No.953 of 2026), on dated 19.01.2026 has held as follows: “We also take notice of the fact that the petition before the High Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which the High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out.” 14. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Accused No.3 influenced the Government Revenue Officials and grabbed the lands of several farmers in an illegal way with the active connivance of the revenue officials by using his political influence. Further, the Petitioners have actively conspired to create a 2 SLP (Crl.) No(s).17464-17465 of 2025 9 fire accident at RDO office to conceal their criminal activities by burning the files at RDO office. Furthermore, they were alleged to have conspired to hide their illegal regularization of freehold lands, D-pattas in Madanapalle Revenue Division, had instigated to ignite all the files with the help of the senior assistant at Sub-Collector Office, Madanapalle. Accused No.4 even prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.596 by the government in the month of December 2023, he along with his associates prepared the list of prohibited lands in the Madanapalle Revenue Division and other places. 15. It is alleged that he along with Accused No.3 approached Accused No.1 and shown the list of prohibited lands i.e., dotted lands, DKT lands, Government lands and asked him to provide the survey numbers which are going to be deleted from the prohibited lands to freehold rights lands. Accused No.1 introduced Goutham Thej, Senior Assistant to the Petitioners and instructed Goutham Teja (Accused No.1) to provide the list of prohibited lands which are going to be freehold after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.596 by the Government. Goutham Teja supplied the list by verifying the revenue records illegally to the private persons. 16. It is alleged further that petitioners and other Accused with the information given by Goutham Teja approached the lands owners having DKT pattas, Dotted lands and other lands in prohibited list and they induced the poor farmers about the issuance of G.O for freeholding lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and entered into agreements and purchased the lands from the poor farmers for low costs. 10 17. It is furthermore alleged that after issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.596 dated 19.12.2023 by the government the Petitioners and other Accused took over the lands from the public in which they had already entered into the agreement with the poor farmers, took over the lands and sold the lands at higher prices and unlawfully gained. 18. It is submitted by the prosecution that both the Petitioners are politically highly influential. They had even managed the Revenue Department with their political connections and committed the offences in large scale. The Petitioners had committed several land grabbing offences, resorted to extorsions by threatening the poor farmers and occupied their lands forcibly with their political mite. 19. The available material on record, prima facie, discloses the complexity of the Petitioners involved in the commission of the offences along with other accused and caused huge loss to the public exchequer. Though the record reveals that more than 121 witnesses were examined, yet the investigation is in crucial and progressive stage. Some more accused are yet to be apprehended. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Some more crucial documents are to be collected in the further course of investigation. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal3, has categorically held that economic offences constitute a class 3 (1987) 2 SCC 364 11 apart and need to be viewed seriously as they affect the economy of the country and shake public confidence in the integrity of the system. 21. Against Accused No.3 a case in Cr.No.138/2024 of Madanapalli I Town Police Station was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 337, 339, 303(2), 305, 317(2), 317(5) and 238 of ‘the BNS’. In that case a direction was given to comply with provisions of Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ and follow the judgment of Arnesh Kumar supra vide order dated 14.08.2024 in Crl.P.No.5424/2024. 22. The case involves huge amount of corruption, forging of public records, large scale of irregularities in dealing with the revenue lands strike at the very root of the public trust and governance. RFSL reports clearly reveal that the fire accident was not natural one. There was no fault in the electrical equipment’s to cause fire accident. There was no short circuit took place. There were no signs of electrical internal overheating. Investigation is required to thoroughly detect cause and origin of the fire accident by collecting sufficient evidence. 23. Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a grave offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed grave offence, and against whom specific overt acts are attributed, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab4 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)5. 4 (1980) 2 SCC 565 5 (2020) 5 SCC 1 12 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana6, at paragraph No.29 held as under: “29. Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an encumbrance-free status. Organised criminal networks often plan and execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them to vacate their properties. These land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socio- economic progress.” 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement7, at paragraph Nos.74 & 83 held as under: “83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, 6 (2023) 8 SCC 181 7 (2019) 9 SCC 24 13 such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”” 26. On a careful consideration of submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides and upon perusal of the entire record, the Petitioners are not entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. The material placed by the prosecution prima facie discloses an active and deliberate involvement of the Petitioners in a large-scale conspiracy relating to illegal regularization of lands, manipulation of revenue records, and destruction of public files by allegedly engineering a manmade fire accident at the RDO office. The seizure of voluminous forged documents, the statements of witnesses, and the forensic expert opinion clearly establish that the incident was not a mere accident, but a deliberate act to conceal grave irregularities. The Petitioners, being politically influential, have allegedly managed revenue officials, threatened landholders, and forcibly occupied lands, thereby causing immense loss to the public exchequer and shaking public confidence in governance. As mentioned supra, the investigation is still at a progressive stage, several witnesses are yet to be examined, and more accused are to be apprehended. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is imperative to unearth the depth of their complicity and to secure further material evidence. Enlarging them on bail at this stage would inevitably hamper the investigation, enable tampering of evidence, and intimidate witnesses. 14 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K.8 at paragraph No.12 held that: “12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like Pocso and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Salochna Pardi v. State of M.P 9at paragraph No.12 it is held as under: “12. It is a settled principle of law that the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail is to be exercised with circumspection and only in exceptional cases, especially where the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of serious offences necessitating custodial interrogation. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no such exceptional grounds are discernible so as to warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.” 29. More importantly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maddala Sakappa Murali v. State of A.P10 at paragraph No.2 held as under: “2. Though, on 02.06.2025, an interim order was passed whereunder the petitioner in the event of his arrest was directed to be released on bail by the investigating / arresting officer on such terms and conditions as may be imposed, we find from the reasons recorded in the impugned order, 8 (2022) 17 SCC 391 9 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18200 OF 2025 10 Special Leave Petition (Crl.).No.8644/2025 15 particularly, in paragraphs 14 to 19, that it is a case of land scam which may require custodial interrogation” Thus, it is a case of land scam which may require custodial interrogation, while saying so the Hon’ble Apex Court discharged the interim order passed against Maddala Sakappa Murali/Accused No.2 in Cr.No.135 of 2024 30. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioners, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of Petitioners for grant of pre-arrest bail as the Petitioners are disentitled for the relief. 31. Hence, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 21.01.2026 VTS