APHC010462522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1030/2026 Between: BATHULA MURAIL KRISHNA, S/O.VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYEE,R/O. DOOR NO. 10-1540,NEAR SARASWATHI SISUMANDIR SCHOOL,MOODU BAVULA CENTER, BYPASS ROAD,NARASARAOPET TOWN, PINCODE522601,PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHI. 2. GUNTUR LAKSHMI, W/O.SAIBABA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,R/O.BARAMPET, NARASARAPET,PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: BURLA SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), challenging the order dated 25.08.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.173 of 2026 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur District at Narasaraopet, against the judgment dated 21.04.2026 passed in C.C. No.841 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. 2. There is no need to hear respondent No.2/de-facto complainant for the reason that the present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the interim order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail till disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Thoughtful consideration has been given to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entire record. 5. Now, the point for consideration is: 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 “Whether the order dated 25.08.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.173 of 2026 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur District at Narasaraopet, is correct, legal and proper and whether there are any material irregularities warranting interference by this Court? And to what relief?” 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner is a sexagenarian aged about 63 years. He has been in judicial custody for the past 65 days, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner himself surrendered before the learned Trial Court. 7. The learned Appellate Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner and dismissed Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2026 on 25.08.2026, which was filed seeking suspension of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, in C.C. No.841 of 2023, vide judgment dated 21.04.2026. 8. The learned Appellate Court observed that the learned Trial Court had delivered the judgment on 21.04.2026. The petitioner filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.214 of 2026 under Section 430(1) of ‘the BNSS’ on 19.05.2026, but the same was dismissed for default on 30.06.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application vide Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2026 seeking similar relief on 06.07.2026, which was also dismissed for default on 15.07.2026. Subsequently, the petitioner/Accused filed Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2026 on 23.07.2026. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 9. The learned Appellate Court observed that the petitioner ought to have obtained appropriate orders from the learned Trial Court for suspension of sentence within thirty days. The learned Appellate Court further observed that the petitioner had not evinced any interest in prosecuting the appeal. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason for non-prosecution of the two applications before the learned Appellate Court was that the father of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court had expired on 24.05.2026. It is submitted that there was no deliberate lapse on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the said applications before the learned Appellate Court. 10. Be that as it may, the appellate right of the petitioner is a substantive and continuing right arising out of the original proceedings. If the petitioner/Accused is continued in judicial custody beyond 65 days, particularly having regard to his age of about 63 years, without hearing and disposal of the appeal, the very purpose of the appellate remedy would be defeated. The learned Appellate Court is required to consider the matter on its merits and reappreciate the evidence, as permissible in law, before arriving at an appropriate conclusion. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2026 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur District at Narasaraopet, warrants interference. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2026 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur District at Narasaraopet, is hereby set aside. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed with the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. ii. The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the learned Trial Court within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of this order. iii. On failure to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within the aforesaid stipulated period, the learned Trial Court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of the said amount. 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 iv. Upon such deposit, respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the same by furnishing sufficient security/sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court concerned. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 03.09.2026 RSI 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 16 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1030 of 2026 Dated: 03.09.2026 RSI