Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010283342026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4563/2026 Between: 1. PADALA RAMANA, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,SECURITY GAURD, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLI DIST.,ANDHRA PRADESH- 531116. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH STATIONHOUSE OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM TOWN POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 2. YEKA SRI SATYA SIVA PRASAD ALIAS SIVA, , S/O. RAJABABU, HINDU,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, K VELAMA BY CASTE, YSRCP LEADER,R/O. D.NO. 4-173, DHANIMIREDDY VEEDHI, NARSIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY,ANAKAPALLI DIST. 3. SURLA APPALANAIDU ALIAS BALIGATTAM NAIDU, , S/O. DEMUDU,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CAST BY K VELAMA, R/O. BALIGATTAM VILLAGE,NARSIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, ANAKAPALLI DIST. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 1. P NANILU NAIDU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, „the BNSS‟), by the Petitioner/De- facto complainant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.3 and 4 in connection with Crl.M.P.No.190 of 2026 in Crime No.60 of 2026 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2026 at about 8:30 p.m., while the de facto complainant was on duty as a security guard at the Srushti Kshetram construction site, the Petitioner/Accused, along with others, came to the spot in a car. They allegedly damaged a motorcycle at the site, wrongfully restrained the complainant, assaulted him causing injuries, and threatened him with dire consequences. 4. Mr. V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order granting bail is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of bail, particularly having regard to the gravity of the offence and the grievous injuries sustained by the victim. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the seriousness of the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 allegations, the medical evidence, and the fact that the investigation was at a nascent stage, with the prime accused yet to be apprehended and crucial evidence still to be collected. It is further contended that the accused are politically and financially influential persons who are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence, threaten witnesses, and obstruct a fair investigation. The Petitioner also submits that the reasons assigned by the Court below for granting bail are unsustainable and contrary to the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the Respondents. 5. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the henchmen of Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.3 and 4 threatened the Petitioner/De-facto complainant with dire consequences, thereby violated the bail conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offences while granting bail and released the accused within a short span of time. He, therefore, prayed that the Criminal Petition be allowed. 6. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petition is devoid of merit, as there is no material to establish that the accused has misused the liberty granted by the Court. It is contended that the accused has faithfully complied with all the conditions of bail, has neither attempted to tamper with the prosecution 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 evidence nor influenced any witness, and has been regularly appearing before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. In the absence of any supervening circumstance or cogent material demonstrating misuse of liberty, the extraordinary power of cancellation of bail cannot be invoked. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is, in effect, seeking a review of the order granting bail, which is impermissible in proceedings for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. 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 Petitioner is entitled for cancellation of bail?” 9. As seen from the record, the alleged offence took place on 24.05.2026. The FIR was registered in Crime No.60 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, „the BNS‟). As the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries, the Investigating Officer subsequently added Section 118(2) of „the BNS‟. 10. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 06.05.2026 and produced before the learned Magistrate. They were remanded to judicial custody on 07.05.2026 for a period of fifteen days. By order dated 11.05.2026, 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 the learned Trial Court enlarged Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on bail, observing that they had been in judicial custody since 06.05.2026, that L.Ws.1 to 5 had been examined, the scene observation report had been prepared, and the rough sketch of the scene of offence had also been drawn. The learned Trial Court further observed that the material part of the investigation had been substantially completed, except for the filing of the charge sheet. On the said reasoning, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were released on bail subject to the following conditions: 1. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 are ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of this Court. 2. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the Sho, Narsipatnam Town PS once in a week i.e., on every Thursday in between 9:00 PM and 12:00 noon for a period of two months or until filing of the charge sheet, which ever is earlier. 3. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall cooperate with the investigation agency whenever they require their presence. 4. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not threaten the witnesses in this case or tamper any evidence. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgement of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia1, wherein at paragraph Nos.17 and 22 it is held as under: “17…Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment. The order of the High Court in the present case, insofar as it is e relevant reads: (Rajesh Kumar case¹, SCC OnLine Raj paras 2-4) 1 (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 118 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 22. Without expressing any finding or opinion on the merits of the case, a case has been made out for setting aside the bail granted by the High Court. The High Court has manifestly erred in not taking note of the material which has been adverted to above. The order passed by the High Court fails to notice material facts and shows a non-application of mind to the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances referred to earlier which ought to have been taken into consideration.” 12. In Mahipal case, the charge was under Section 302 of „the I.P.C.,‟ whereas, in the present case, the charge is under Section 118(2) of „the BNS‟. 13. It is not the case of the Petitioner that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 themselves threatened the Petitioner with dire consequences. The specific allegation of the Petitioner is that the henchmen of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 heckled and threatened him with dire consequences. In that regard, the Petitioner lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Narsipatnam Rural Police Station. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, and the Station House Officer submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsipatnam, confirming the allegations made by the Petitioner. However, the report also records that the persons who allegedly threatened the Petitioner were not identified, and that the complaint disclosed only a non- cognizable offence. 13. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit and submitted that the criminal petition seeking cancellation of bail is misconceived, politically motivated, and filed only to harass them. They submit that the learned Magistrate granted bail through a reasoned order after considering the case diary, the progress of investigation, and imposing stringent conditions, which they have fully complied with. They deny all allegations of political influence, 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 witness intimidation, or tampering with evidence, stating that the claims are vague, unsupported, and that key witnesses have already been examined while material objects are in police custody. They argue that the absconding status of Accused No. 1 is irrelevant to their case, as each accused is entitled to independent consideration on the merits of their own case.They assert that there are no supervening circumstances or misuse of bail warranting cancellation, and therefore pray for dismissal of the criminal petition. 14. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana2 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation. The relevant paragraph No.4, is extracted as under: “4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non- bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 15. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 3, the Supreme Court observed that cancellation is warranted where the accused misuses the liberty granted by the Court and at paragraph No.22 it is held as under: 2 (1995) 1 SCC 349 3 (1986) 4 SCC 481 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 “22. The result of our discussion and the case-law is this : An order for release on bail made under the proviso to Section 167(2) is not defeated by lapse of time, the filing of the charge-sheet or by remand to custody under Section 309(2). The order for release on bail may however be cancelled under Section 437(5) or Section 439(2). Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to him. The due administration of justice may be interfered with by intimidating or suborning witnessses, by interfering with investigation, by creating or causing disappearance of evidence etc. The course of justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by leaving the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts. Where bail has been granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation in 60 days, after the defect is cured by the filing of a charge-sheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. In the last mentioned case, one would expect very strong grounds indeed.” 16. In Puran v. Rambilas4, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that bail can be cancelled where the order granting bail is unjustified, suffers from serious infirmities, or ignores relevant material, saying so, wherein at paragraph No.10, it is held as under: “10. Mr Lalit next submitted that once bail has been granted it should not be cancelled unless there is evidence that the conditions of bail are being infringed. In support of this submission he relies upon the authority in the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . In this case it has been held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. It has been held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. It has been held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. It is, however, to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court has to be corrected.” 4 (2001) 6 SCC 338 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 17. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P5, at paragraph No.11 it is held as under: “11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail: (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. In the present case, none of these situations existed.” 18. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P6, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.12, held as under: “12. We have referred to certain principles to be kept in mind while granting bail, as has been laid down by this Court from time to time. It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the court.” 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The material placed on record does not disclose any supervening circumstance warranting interference with the order granting bail. Equally, no material has been placed before this Court to establish that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have violated 5 (2024) 4 SCC 222 6 (2014) 16 SCC 508 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 the conditions of bail, attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence, intimidated the witnesses, or otherwise abused the liberty granted to them. The allegations regarding threats are not directly attributable to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, in any event, are not supported by sufficient material to justify cancellation of bail. Since the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, the apprehension of interference with the investigation no longer survives. Therefore, this Court finds no legal or factual basis to invoke the extraordinary power of cancellation of bail under Section 483(2) of „the BNSS‟. 20. It has to point that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offences while granting bail and released the accused within a short span of time. 21. However, considering the apprehension expressed by the Petitioner and with a view to ensuring a fair and uninfluenced trial, this Criminal Petition is disposed of strengthening the conditions of bail imposed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam, in Crl.M.P.No.190 of 2026 as follows: i. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Narsipatnam Town Police Station twice in a week i.e., every Monday and Thursday in between 10:00 A.M., and 1:00 P.M., till the prime witness of the prosecution are examined by the learned Trial Court. ii. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.3 and 4 or their henchmen or their supporters shall not indulge the activities of threatening the witnesses in the case in any manner. 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the Investigating Officer is directed to inquire into the allegation that the Respondents/Accused Nos.3 and 4 had instigated or engaged their henchmen to threaten the Petitioner with dire consequences. If the allegation is found to be true, the Investigating Officer shall take appropriate steps to ensure the protection of the victim and initiate necessary action against the Respondents/Accused Nos.3 and 4. A copy of this order shall forward to the learned Trial Court. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 13.07.2026 KMS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 39 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4563/2026 Date: 13.07.2026 KMS