APHC010285822026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 4603 and 4604 of 2026 1.CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4603/2026 Between: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDYAL TALUK UPS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. SHAIK SALMA ALIAS KARISHMA, W/O. LATE KAREEMULLA, AGED 26 YEARS, N/O. H.NO. 4/T25C, CHAND BADA, NANDYAL TOWN R/O. BANDI ATMAKUR (V) Y (M), NANDYAL DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK ALTAF, S/O. SHAIK NIZAMUDDIN AGED 35 YEARS N/O. CHANDBADA, NANDYAL TOWN, R/O. NABI NAGAR, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK REHMAN, S/O. SHAIK NIZAMUDDIN, AGED 20 YEARS, N/O. CHANDBADA, NANDYAL TOWN, R/O. NABI NAGAR, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 1. KARTHIK SHAH 2. LEGAL AID 2.CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4604/2026 Between: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDYAL TALUK UPS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. SHAIK REHAMTHULLA ALIAS TULLA, S/O. SHAIK NIZAMUDDIN, AGED 24 YEARS, N/O. CHANDBADA STREET, NANDYAL TOWN, R/O. NABI NAGAR, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 2. DARGA SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA TUNTA, S/O. D. S. ABDULLA, AGED 23 YEARS, R/O. BAIRMAL STREET, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK SOHEL, S/O. SHAIK AKBAR BASHA, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. MULLANPET, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. SHAIK SAIF ALI SEMPALLI, S/O. SHAIK ISMAIL, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. MULLANPET, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. KARTHIK SHAH 2. LEGAL AID 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, as the petitioner in both the Criminal Petitions is one and the same, though the respondents/accused are different. Both the Criminal Petitions are filed challenging the orders granting bail to the respondents/accused in Crl.M.P.Nos.235 and 239 of 2026. 2. Criminal Petition Nos.4603 of 2026 and 4604 of 2026 have been filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.67 of 2026 of Nandyal Taluk Urban Police Station, vide orders dated 08.07.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.235 and 239 of 2026 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that based on the written report dated 19.04.2026 submitted by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.67 of 2026 of Nandyal Taluk U.P.S. was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’. It is alleged that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the deceased and his wife/A5, the accused persons, at the instigation of A5, conspired to kill the deceased. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, A1 to A4 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 allegedly took the deceased from his house on the pretext of consuming alcohol, took him to the scene of offence and, after making him consume alcohol, A1 to A4 indiscriminately stabbed him with knives, resulting in his death. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, collected blood-stained earth and other material from the scene of offence, arrested seven accused persons and seized two motorcycles under the cover of a confession, arrest and seizure panchanama. It is further alleged that A2 was arrested, while A3 and A4 are absconding, and a rowdy sheet is existing against A3. The investigation is still in progress and the Investigating Officer is yet to collect certain material and technical evidence, obtain the final medical opinion, examine additional witnesses, verify the involvement of other persons and collect the medical records pertaining to the injuries sustained by the accused. 4. Despite service of notice on the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7, they have neither appeared before this Court nor engaged any counsel to represent them. Therefore, this Court was constrained to appoint a Legal Aid Counsel on their behalf. Mr. Karthik Shah, learned counsel, is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7. 5. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/complainant and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 6. Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/complainant submits that the bail granted to the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7 is liable to be cancelled in view of the serious nature and gravity of the offence alleged against them. He submits that the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7 are alleged to have participated in a pre-planned murder pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons. He further submits that the investigation is still in progress and certain material and technical evidence, the final medical opinion and statements of additional witnesses are yet to be collected. It is further submitted that the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7 have criminal antecedents and there is every likelihood of their absconding and influencing or threatening the witnesses. Hence, he requests this Court to cancel the bail granted to the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7 and direct them to surrender before the Investigating Officer. 7. Mr. Karthik Shah, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7 opposes the petition and submits that the bail granted to the respondents was after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. He submits that there is no allegation that the respondents have violated any of the conditions imposed while granting bail. He further submits that the prosecution has not placed any material to show that the respondents have misused the liberty granted to them. He submits that the allegations of 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 threatening or influencing the witnesses are only apprehensions without any supporting material. It is further submitted that the respondents are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court. He submits that the investigation can be completed without curtailing the liberty already granted to the respondents. He further submits that the criminal antecedents, if any, by themselves cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail in the absence of misuse of liberty. He submits that there are no supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents. Hence, he requests this Court to dismiss the petitions filed by the prosecution and permit the respondents to continue on bail. 8. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 9. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the bails granted to the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 7 are liable to be cancelled?” 10. As seen from the record, Respondent Nos.1 to 7 were remanded to judicial custody on 25.04.2026. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, enlarged the respondents/accused on bail on 08.05.2026. No conditions were imposed on the accused while enlarging them on bail. 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the investigation was mostly completed. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that only L.Ws.1 to 10 have been examined and that some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, the investigation is still at a nascent stage. 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, within a span of fifteen days from the date of remand, enlarged the respondents/accused on bail, which, according to the prosecution, has the effect of hampering the investigation and preventing it from being brought to its logical conclusion. Further, there are altogether 18 stab injuries noticed on the body of the deceased. The deceased is the son of the de-facto complainant. Accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 are the brothers of the wife of the deceased and, thus, are the brothers of Accused No.5. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are friends of Accused No.1. Accused No.5 is the wife of the deceased. 13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, without properly verifying the progress of the investigation, granted bail to the respondents/accused mainly on the ground that there are no specific overt acts attributed to Accused Nos.1 to 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further observed that no incriminating material is available against the accused. In the considered view of this Court, at this stage, before completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, it would not be appropriate to conclusively determine the nature and sufficiency of the evidence available 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 against the accused. The learned Trial Court ought not to have come to the conclusion, at this nascent stage of the investigation, that there is no incriminating material available against the accused. 14. The learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, wherein, at paragraph No.19, it was held as under: 19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439(2) CrPC. 15. It is settled law that for cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required. Unless a strong case is made out on the basis of supervening circumstances, an order granting bail ought not to be interfered with. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable. The respondents/accused were enlarged on bail within a span of fifteen days from the date of their initial remand. The prosecution was not afforded sufficient time to conduct the investigation and collect the necessary material against the respondents/accused. 16. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the order granting bail to the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7 is liable to be cancelled, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. He 1 Criminal Appeal No.1972 of 2022, dated 11.11.2022 9 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 submits that the accused are alleged to have acted pursuant to a conspiracy and participated in the murder of the deceased. He further submits that the respondents were enlarged on bail within a short period from the date of their remand, though the investigation was not completed. He submits that only L.Ws.1 to 10 have been examined and that some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, the observation of the learned Trial Court that the investigation was mostly completed is contrary to the actual stage of investigation. 17. It is further submitted that the deceased sustained as many as 18 stab injuries and that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie discloses the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the offence. Indeed, the learned Trial Court, while granting bail, has not properly appreciated the stage of investigation, the nature and gravity of the offence and the material available on record. 18. It is alleged by the de-facto complainant that her son was brutally killed by repeated stabbings and that Accused Nos.1 to 4 committed the said ghastly acts at the instance of Accused No.5, who is the wife of the deceased. The specific allegation against Accused No.5 is that she instigated Accused Nos.1 to 4 to commit the offence. The allegation against Accused Nos.6 and 7 is that they not only harboured Accused Nos.1 to 4, but also conspired with other accused in committing the murder of the son of the de-facto complainant brutally. 10 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 19. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the nascent and progressive stage of the investigation, the fact that some more material witnesses are yet to be examined, and the circumstances in which the respondents/accused were enlarged on bail, this Court is of the considered view that the bail granted to the respondents/accused warrants interference and liable to be cancelled. 20. Accordingly, the bail granted in favour of Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 7 vide orders dated 08.05.2026 in Crl.M.P.Nos.235 and 239 of 2026 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are hereby cancelled. Respondent/Accused Nos.1 to 7 shall be taken into judicial custody forthwith. 21. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.08.2026 RSI 11 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2026 Dated 31.08.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 4603 and 4604 of 2026 Date: 31.08.2026 RSI