Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Smt. Vidadala Rajani - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3375/2025
Decided On : 25-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 - Sections 7, 7A, 384, 386 - Anticipatory bail applications filed by accused in corruption case - Allegations of extortion and bribery against public servants - Court finds no prima facie case for Section 386 IPC, suggesting applicability of Section 384 IPC instead - Prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act not required for alleged acts outside official duties - Delay in filing complaint raises concerns of political motivation. (Paras 1-44)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Granting anticipatory bail requires exceptional circumstances - Mere political motivations or uncorroborated allegations insufficient for denial of bail - Court must balance the rights of the accused with public justice. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 28)
(C) Investigation Procedures - Section 173(3) of BNSS mandates preliminary inquiry for offences punishable with less than seven years - Failure to conduct such inquiry does not invalidate the investigation. (Paras 21-23)
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 (!)
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.
Vidadala Rajani (A.1, former Minister and MLA), Sri P. Joshua, IPS (A.2, then RV&EO, Guntur), and others demanded and accepted bribes. The enquiry report, submitted vide Letter No.3999/V&E/NR/2024 dated 03.12.2024, recommended a comprehensive ACB investigation, disciplinary action against A.2, and legal proceedings against other involved parties. The Government forwarded the V&E report to the ACB through Memo No. 2645183/SC.D/A1/2024 dated 23.01.2025, requesting an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, the DG, ACB, A.P., Vijayawada sought sanction under Section 17A of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018. The Government, vide Memo No.2645183/SC.D/A1/2024 dated 18.02.2025, granted permission for investigation against A.2 and A.4 (Sri Dodda Ramakrishna, PA to A.1). However, through Memo No. 2723576/A1/2025/Poll.B, dated 07.03.2025, it clarified that A.1, being an MLA, does not require sanction under Section 17A as the alleged act, extorting money from a businessman, was unrelated to her official duties. According to the complainant, A.1, her brother-in-law Sri Vidadala Gopi, i.e., A.3, A.4, and A.2 demanded and extorted Rs. 2 crores for A.1 and Rs. 10 lakhs each for A.2 and A.3. A.2 allegedly conducted an unauthorized inspection of the complainant's stone crusher unit on 10.09.2020, without a formal petition or orders, solely to intimidate and extort.
4. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report.
5. Sri S. Sriram, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy and Sri Saran Chodisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 in Crl.P.No.3375 of 2025, contends that the petitioner, a former Minister, has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political vendetta by the newly formed Government; the prosecution was initiated without prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, which is mandatory for public servants, including MLAs. Notably, such approval was obtained for A2, who stands on a similar footing; the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of four years, casting serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations; the delay appears to be motivated by malice and political considerations, as held in State of A.P. V. M. Madhusudhan Rao., [(2008) 15 SCC 58]; multiple false cases have been registered against the petitioner and her family post-regime change, clearly reflecting political bias; the statement of A2, allegedly implicating the petitioner, contains no direct accusation and lacks documentary support. Its unauthorized circulation by a ruling party MP reveals undue political influence over the investigation; as per Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, anticipatory bail s
Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case exists, especially when allegations are politically motivated or lack corroboration.
Point of Law : Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, High Court would have to proceed entirely on basis of allegations made in complaint or documents accompanying same per se....
Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties - Once a constitutional court examines and satisfies itself about necessi....
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted based on vague allegations; the applicant must demonstrate a reasonable belief of imminent arrest linked to specific offenses.
(1) Pre-arrest bail – There cannot be presumption of guilt to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before Court.(2) No arrest can be made routinely on a mere allegation of commissio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior approval for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, and its implications f....
Prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is only required for offenses relating to public officials' duties; misconduct that constitutes a crime does not benefit from this....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
