Korlapati Gopi Krishna S/o Narayana Hindu vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(AP) 612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Korlapati Gopi Krishna S/o Narayana Hindu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2030 of 2024
Decided on : 18-04-2024

Important Points

Anticipatory bail was granted as the evidence against the accused was insufficient to satisfy the elements of kidnapping for ransom under IPC, and no flight risk was present.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail

Act Referred

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.156(3), S.438
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.232, S.34, S.342, S.348, S.363, S.364(a)
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT: S.3(1)(r)(s), S.3(2)(v)(a)

Headnote

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 364-A, 323, 342, read with Section 34 - SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 - Anticipatory bail sought for accused in kidnap case - Accusations largely rely on A1's confession, with lack of independent evidence against A2 to A4 - The court observed that the elements for Section 364-A IPC were not prima facie satisfied, highlighting doubts regarding their application (Paras 2, 7, 9).

(B) Bail - Considerations - Court indicated that the petitioner’s permanent residence mitigated the flight risk; they possessed no previous criminal record (Paras 7, 9, 10).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, accused of kidnapping for ransom, claim false implication; no charge sheet filed yet; conditions set for bail include personal bond and regular check-ins (Paras 4, 10).

Findings of Court:
Anticipatory bail granted with conditions due to insufficient evidence connecting accused with ransom demands and potential flight risk deemed low (Paras 9, 10).

Issues: Determination of applicability of Sections 364-A IPC and SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 to the facts at hand; the burden of evidence on the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of endorsing evidence against the petitioners warranted the granting of anticipatory bail (Paras 7, 10).

Result: Criminal Petition is allowed.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Habibulla Shaik

Table of Content
1. circumstances of the criminal case and offenses alleged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against anticipatory bail. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's evaluation of evidence and legal applicability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. conditions imposed for granting anticipatory bail. (Para 10)
5. final order allowing anticipatory bail. (Para 11)

ORDER :

T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed on behalf of the petitioners/A2 to A4 herein to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.127 of 2024 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offence punishable under Section 363 , 364-A, 232 and 342 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The complainant Epuru Sunitha is a resident of Epuru Village. She came to his brother’s house on 11.02.2024 to look-after the baby of her brother and staying at house. On the same day at about 5.00 PM, four male persons came to the house, while her brother Kolikapudi Nagendra Babu was in the house and they discussed with her brother that they want to come out for discussion. When she asked her brother as to whom they are, then he narrated that he took money from Muni of Hyderabad, he contacted him so many times for his money, he did not lift the phone. Muni may sent the said persons. Out of them, A1 due to fear her brother rejected to accompany with them, they forcibly took her brother in a car, when, she contacted her brother, but, he did not answer. On 12-02-2024, her brother contacted her with his mobile number and narrated that he want cash of Rs.5,00,000/- through one Gundimeda Siva Kumar and was handed to them at 2.30pm, when she contacted her brother, he did not answer. On 12.02.2024 at 8.05pm, her brother contacted her and requested Rs.3,00,000/-. Since then, her brother did not return back to house, then, she came to police station and presented a written report to take necessary action against the A1 and three others committed kidnap of her brother from the house on 13.02.2024. Basing on the same, police registered the report as a case in Cr.No.127/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 363 , 364-A, 323 and 342 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. During the course of investigation, police arrested the A1 on 16.02.2024 and send to judicial custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners/A2 to A4 have been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A2 to A4 further contended that basing on the confession of A1, the case came to be registered against the petitioners/A2 to A4 and the petitioners are no where concerned with the commission of the offence and they are apprehending arrest in the hands of the police, as such prays to enlarge the petitioners/A2 to A4 on anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confirms non-filing of charge sheet by the police and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioners have no previous antecedents. He further submitted that the investigation is at crucial stage. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that notice given to the defacto complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state, I have carefully gone through the material on record.

7. As seen from the record, the contentions of the petitioners that the except the confessional statement of A1 no other independent material has been collected to show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitione