APHC010662242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12743/2025 Between: R RAMESH, S/O. LATE RAMUREDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ,OCC ADVOCATE , R/O ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, ARCOT KUPPAM POST, TIRUTTANI TALUK,TIRUVALLUR DIST., TAMILNADU. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. A VENKATESAN ALIAS VENKATESH, S/O.AMAVASAI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, TIRUTHANI TALUK, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 2. V PRABHU, S/O.A.VENKATESAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, TIRUTHANI TALUK, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 3. V SETHUPATHY SHEDU V SETHUPATHI SETU, S/O.A.VENKATESAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, TIRUTHANI TALUK, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIJAYAPURAM P.S , CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. JAYA PRAKASH MADASU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner / 2 De facto complainant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondents / Accused Nos.1 to 3 vide Order dated 08.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.811 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari, Chittoor District in connection with Crime No.41 of 2025 of Vijayapuram Police Station, for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, in view of the existing land disputes between the family of the Accused Venkatesan and the deceased, in the year 2016, the Accused attempted to commit murder of the deceased, however, he survived. In execution of the conspiracy, on 23.06.2025 between 2.00 p.m., and 3.00 p.m., the Accused followed the deceased in a Tractor, hit his motorcycle, caused him to fall on the road. Thereafter, the Accused allegedly attacked him brutally with sickles, inflicting grievous injuries on the left side of his neck, left jaw, right hand and other parts of the body, resulting in his instantaneous death. 3. Heard Sri Jayaprakash Madasu, learned counsel for Petitioner / De facto complainant and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.4 / State and Sri P.Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents / Accused Nos.1 to 3. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioners had a long-standing enmity with the deceased for over a decade arising from disputes relating to illegal sand transportation and property ownership, which clearly establishes a strong motive for the offence. Learned counsel 3 would further submit that the Accused continuously interfered with the his possession of the deceased, fabricated documents, and engaged in repeated acts of intimidation. Their involvement in multiple prior criminal cases shows that they are habitual offenders. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners also involved in three more cases in Crime Nos.386 of 2013, 382 of 2013 and 163 of 2014. Even during the land survey conducted under court directions, they obstructed officials and continued their threats, demonstrating complete disregard for lawful authority. Immediately prior to the incident, they attempted to remove survey boundaries and issued life threats, which were formally reported, establishing a direct link between the threats and the subsequent murder. The murder was carried out in a premeditated manner, and the judicial confession of the accused confirms their intention and prior enmity. It is further submitted that the Sessions Court had already rejected bail considering the gravity of the offence; however, the Magistrate granted bail to the Petitioner,s without proper application of mind, ignoring the seriousness of the crime and their criminal antecedents. The bail granted on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet within 90 days was done mechanically, without imposing stringent conditions. After their release, the accused have created fear among witnesses, discouraging them from giving evidence, and there is a real likelihood of tampering with evidence and protecting absconding co-accused. The 4 defacto complainant and his family are under constant threat, and the continued liberty of the Petitioners poses a serious risk to their safety and to the fair administration of justice. Therefore, prayed to cancel the bail granted to the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that preliminary charge sheet is filed in this matter and some of the Accused are absconding. It is further submitted that three more cases have also been registered against the Petitioners. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are civil disputes between the parties and CCTV footage is also there to show the presence of the Petitioners at the relevant time and place. Hence, prayed to cancel the bail granted to the Petitioners. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondents / Accused Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the learned Magistrate has rightly granted statutory bail to the Petitioners since the charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed time. It is also submitted that the alleged apprehension of threat to witnesses is baseless, and there is no material to show misuse of bail or violation of conditions. Hence, in the absence of any supervening circumstances, the petition for cancellation of bail is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and the materials placed on record. It is not in dispute that the bail was granted to the Petitioners on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet within the statutory period. However, it is equally well settled that the grant of statutory 5 bail does not create an absolute or indefeasible right to continue on bail in the face of subsequent developments and supervening circumstances. 8. In the present case, the materials placed before this Court prima facie disclose serious allegations against the Petitioners, including a long- standing motive, prior criminal antecedents, and their alleged involvement in a premeditated murder. The subsequent filing of the preliminary charge sheet, the existence of CCTV footage indicating their presence at the scene of occurrence, and the fact that some co-accused are still absconding are significant developments. More importantly, the apprehension of the intimidation of the witnesses by the Petitioners and creation of an atmosphere of fear cannot be lightly brushed aside. The order of the learned Magistrate granting bail appears to have been passed mechanically on the sole ground of default in filing the charge sheet, without due consideration of the gravity of the offence, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of their interfering with the investigation and trial. The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the conduct attributed to the Petitioners after their release, constitute cogent and overwhelming circumstances warranting cancellation of bail. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continued liberty of the Petitioners poses a serious threat to the witnesses and is likely to impede the fair course of trial. The apprehension expressed by the Petitioner as well as the prosecution is found to be reasonable and substantiated by the materials on record. 6 10. Considering the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the Petitioners, the nature of the evidence collected during investigation, and the specific apprehension expressed by the De facto complainant as well as the prosecution regarding the possibility of intimidating the witnesses, this Court is of the view that the bail granted to the Petitioners is liable to be cancelled. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the bail of Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 granted vide Order dated 08.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.811 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari, Chittoor District in connection with Crime No.41 of 2025 of Vijayapuram Police Station, is cancelled. Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 are directed to surrender before the concerned Jurisdictional Court within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.03.2026 SDP Dinesh 7 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12743 of 2025 DATE:16.03.2026 SDP Dinesh