SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 57

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Vidadala Rajani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S DUSHYANTH REDDY, V MAHESWAR REDDY, T M K CHAITANYA
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court discusses that anticipatory bail requires exceptional circumstances and that mere political motivation or uncorroborated allegations may be insufficient to deny bail (!) (!) (!) (!) - Section 17A of the PC Act: prior approval is required only for offences relatable to recommendations/decisions by public servants in discharge of duties; not all acts require approval; the court analyzes whether A.1’s alleged act falls within 17A’s scope (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment notes that for offences punishable <7 years, preliminary enquiry under BNSS Section 173(3) may be required; absence of preliminary enquiry does not invalidate investigation, but 173(3) provides for preliminary inquiry before FIR if applicable (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court disposes of petitions with directions to follow Section 41A Cr.P.C. and Section 35(3) BNSS, and to provide address details and avoid public comments; notes Arnesh Kumar guidelines for arrest and bail (!) (!) (!) - The court considers that Section 386 IPC may not be applicable and suggests Section 384 IPC instead; discusses elements of extortion under IPC and related evidence concerns (!) (!) (!) (!) - The order states the investigation should proceed without influence from observations in the order; the petitioners must cooperate (!)

What is the standard for granting anticipatory bail in BNSS offences when prima facie case is not established?

What are the circumstances under which Section 17A prior approval is required for investigation into offences relatable to public servants’ official duties?

What procedure and conditions apply to bail and investigation under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and Section 35(3) BNSS in corruption cases?


COMMON ORDER:

T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Since these Criminal Petitions are filed, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), seeking anticipatory bail by different accused i.e., Crl.P.No.3375 of 2025 (filed by A.1), Crl.P.No.3493 of 2025 (filed by A.3) and Crl.P.No.3455 of 2025 (filed by A.4) in same crime viz., Cr.No.01/RCO-CIU-ACB/2025 of Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order.

2. The above crime was registered against the petitioners and another for the offence punishable under sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short 'the PC Act') and sections 384, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). During the investigation, the investigating officer subsequently altered the offence under Section 384 IPC to Section 386 IPC.

3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the Vigilance & Enforcement (V&E) Department conducted an enquiry based on a representation from Sri Nallapaneni Chalapathi Rao, Managing Partner of Sri Lakshmi Balaji Stone Crushers, Edlapadu, Palnadu District. The complaint alleged that Smt.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top