APHC010156882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2394/2026 Between: 1. V JAGADEESAN, S/O VENKATESAN,AGED 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1/18,KOVIL STREET, ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE,TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATI. 2. R RAMESH, S/O. LATE RAMUREDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, ARCOT KUPPAM POST, TIRUTTANI TALUK, TIRUVALLUR DIST, TAMILNADU. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 06.04.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.2394 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to release the petitioner/Accused No. 8 on bail, inquiry and trial in PRC No. 7/2025 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Nagari and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the 2 High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit me to implead proposed respondent No. 2 as Defacto Complainant as Respondent No.2 to the main Criminal Petition Case in CrI.P.No.2394 of 2026 and pending Interlocutory Applications therein, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. JAYA PRAKASH MADASU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2394/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused No.8, seeking regular bail, in P.R.C.No.7 of 2025, on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Nagari, registered for the offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short “BNS”). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, R. Ramesh, an Advocate, lodged a complaint stating that his brother, V.M. Venkateswar (deceased), was residing at Arumbakkam Village and was in possession of agricultural lands; that on 23.06.2025, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., while the deceased was returning on his two-wheeler, some unknown persons followed him in a tractor and, near Patharkadu Village, hit his vehicle, causing him to fall, after which they attacked him with sickles and caused his death on the spot; that there was prior enmity between the deceased and certain persons, including A.1 Venkatesan and others, due to land disputes, and it is alleged that they conspired to eliminate the deceased by engaging unknown persons; and that based on the said complaint, the Vijayapuram Police registered a case in Crime No. 41 of 2025 and took up investigation. 3. Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.8, Sri Jaya Prakash Madasu, learned counsel for the 4 respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is Accused No. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed in this matter, but there is no material collected by the Investigating Agency to connect the petitioner to the crime. The case is lodged against the petitioner basing on the confession of the co-accused i.e., Accused Nos. 2 and 3. Initially, the case was registered against unknown persons and on suspicion the petitioner was implicated. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 alone are alleged to have participated in the incident, and the allegation against the petitioner is that he conspired with Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Call data records are not collected and no witness has spoken about the petitioner herein. The presence of the petitioner at the place of incident is also not established. Learned counsel would further submit that, according to the de facto complainant, who is the brother of the deceased, the petitioner threatened the witnesses, and to that effect a case has been registered in Crime No. 127 of 2025; however, the de facto complainant in Crime No. 127 of 2025 is not a witness in the present case as per the charge sheet. Learned counsel would further submit that the presence of the petitioner at the time of the alleged conspiracy is stated to be at Arumbakkam, since he is a resident of that place and an agriculturist. The deceased had disputes with several 5 other persons in the village. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/defacto complainant would submit that the Accused Nos. 5 to 9 threatened the eye witnesses in this matter. He would further submit that the defacto complainant in Crime No.127 of 2025 is a panch witness for inquest and is managing the property of the deceased. He was threatened by the present petitioner. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there is previous enmity between the petitioner and the deceased. The investigation would reveal that the petitioner played a role in the conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. The earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026 in Crl.P.No.406 of 2026. She would further submit that there are no changes of circumstances from the date of dismissal of earlier bail application. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material on record and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the fact that there are no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail application, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.8 on bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. 6 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 16.04.2026. UPS 7 94 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2394/2026 Dt.16.04.2026 UPS