IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
Kottevalla Jayaprakash Reddy @ Jaya @ Reddy, S/O. Munirathnam – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its public prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
Criminal Petition No: 1905 of 2025
Decided On : 04-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of bail application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding innocence and delay. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. prosecutors' arguments on trial delays. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. court's evaluation of bail principles. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. importance of trial procedure and parity. (Para 24 , 26 , 29) |
| 6. conclusion on bail dismissal. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
ORDER :
Y. LAKSHMANARAO, J.
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) [ Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’)] seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor, which arose out of Crime No.130/2015 of I Town Police Station, Chittoor.
2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chittoor/Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against Petitioners and twenty one others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 302, 307, 326, 120-B, 109 read with 149, 212, 216 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’), Sections 25(1A), 25(1AAA), 25(1B)(a), 25(1B)(c), 27(3) and 30 of the ARMS ACT , 1959 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The Petitioners were arrested by the Investigating Officer on 24.11.2015. Since then, they have been in the judicial custody.
3. Provenance of the case of the prosecution as emanated from the averments of the charge sheet is as follows:
On 17.11.2015 V. Satish Kumar Naidu gave a statement to the police in CMC Hospital, Vellore. Basing on the statement, a case was registered in Crime No.130/2015 of Chittoor I Town Police Station against accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 120-B, 301 r/w 511 r/w 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sec.25(1B)(a) and 27 of ‘the Act’. It is stated in the report that on 17.11.2015 V. Satish Kumar Naidu went to Municipal Corporation Office, Chittoor to meet Katari Mohan, who was the husband of Mayor of Chittoor Municipal Corporation, to discuss about his father's transfer. When he is in the chambers of the Mayor at about 11:45 a.m., the accused No.1 to 4 entered into the Chambers of Mayor. Out of four of the above accused, two persons were in Burkhas. The accused No.1 had removed his Burkha and shot the Mayor on her head with a revolver. Accused No.3 hacked Katari Mohan with a knife on his neck. When the de-facto complainant tried to stop accused No.4, he hacked him on his back. When Katari Mohan had run away into the conference Hall which is attached to the Mayor's chamber, all the accused chased him and hacked him with knives. Thereafter the persons who were there viz., Murali, Chinna, Kishore, Vijay Kumar and others shifted the Mayor Anuradha, Katari Mohan and the de-facto complainant to hospital, where the doctors declared that the Mayor was brought dead. Thereafter, Katari Mohan, who received serious injuries, and the de-facto complainant were shifted to CMC Hospital for better treatment.
After registration of FIR, police took up investigation. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners and 21 others.
4. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent, they did not commit any offence, much less the alleged offences; they were falsely implicated in this case by the de-facto complainant; there was a delay of eight hours in lodging the report though the incident occurred in the heart of Chittoor City and the Police Station is within one kilometre away from the scene of offence; as it is a sensational case in Chittoor District, although Police were aware about the incident immediately within minutes and number of persons were available, the FIR was registered not immediately; there were number of instances whic
Bail for accused involved in heinous crimes requires careful assessment of individual roles and public safety, with parity not considered if roles differ significantly.
The principle of parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of the accused's specific role and circumstances, rather than being an absolute basis for granting bail.
The court determined that prolonged detention does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when substantial evidence of guilt exists, underscoring the rights to a speedy trial within serious cri....
Under UA(P) Act Section 43D(5), bail denied if charge-sheet shows prima facie true accusations of terrorist gang involvement; custody/delay insufficient absent changed circumstances; parity only for ....
Bail under the U.A.P. Act requires prima facie assessment of allegations; long custody or parity with co-accused do not automatically justify release.
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the applicant, as the prime accused in serious offences, cannot be granted bail due to the risk of trial tampering and his history of absconding, despite delays in the trial proc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.