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) 973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
Maddala Sakappa Murali - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 2 OF 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: O Kailashnath Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

Anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances; the court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation for serious accusations.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 326(g), 316(5), 61(2) - PDPP Act, 1984 - Anticipatory bail application - The court observed that grave nature of accusations against the petitioner necessitates custodial interrogation; anticipatory bail denied as no exceptional circumstances exist - The petitioner’s cooperation with investigations is noted, but insufficient for bail granting. (Paras 20, 21)

(B) Criminal Law - Test for granting anticipatory bail - The court emphasized the necessity for prima facie evidence in assessing bail applications, highlighting judicial discretion must be exercised with caution and prudence. (Paras 7, 10, 19)

Facts of the case:
This case pertains to an accidental fire that erupted on 21.07.2024 in the Sub-Collector’s Office, resulting in extensive damage. The petitioner, previously the R.D.O., was implicated in a conspiracy relating to the incident and subsequent forgery allegations against a junior staff member.

Findings of Court:
The petition lacks merit; the nature of the accusations necessitates the petitioner’s custodial interrogation.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the gravity of the allegations and cooperation with investigations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances; thus, the gravity of the alleged crimes justified denial of bail.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. accidental fire incident details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel arguments and submissions. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioner's defense claims. (Para 5 , 6)
4. criteria for anticipatory bail considerations. (Para 18 , 19)
5. court's decision on bail application. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER :

T Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner/A.2 has filed the Criminal Petition by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, " BNS S ') seeking pre-arrest bail in case of his arrest concerning Crime No.135 of 2024, (relating to Accidental Fire) U/head altered to Section 326 (g), 316(5) & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’) and section 4 of PDPP Act, 1984 of Madanapalli I Town Police Station, Annamayya District, now CID, RO, Tirupati.

2. The prosecution's case, as outlined in the complaint, in summary, is as follows:

(i) On 21.07.2024, at approximately 11:25 PM, an accidental fire occurred in the Eastern section of the Sub-Collector’s Office, Madanapalle. Sri B. Ramanaiah (Village Revenue Assistant), the night watchman, at about 11:25 PM, noticed flames and attempted to control the fire, but it spread uncontrollably. At 11:42 PM, he informed Smt. G. Thapaswini, Deputy Tahsildar of Nimmanapalle Mandal, informed the Camp Clerk of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle. The Camp Clerk subsequently notified the Station Fire Officer, Madanapalle, and the complainant. Despite efforts to extinguish the flames and retrieve office files and computers, it was unsuccessful due to the intensity of the fire. The complainant then informed the Electricity Department, which promptly disconnected the power supply to prevent further spreading.

(ii) The complainant also notified the Collector & District Magistrate of Annamayya District, who called him by phone. By 12:45 AM, an additional fire tender arrived, and the fire was brought under control. Upon inspection, several items were found to be destroyed, including computer systems, monitors, a Xerox machine, printers, and scanners. Additionally, the following essential files were completely burned:

1. G. Gowtham Thej, Sr. Asst. – Alienation, Section 22-A, Dotted Lands, Assignment Freeholds

2. J. Yatheesha, Jr. Asst. – RTI Act, 2005

3. G. Shilpa, Sr. Asst. – Assignments, Assignment Appeals, Files related to Mudivedu Balancing Reservoir R&R

4. G. Aslam Basha, Election Dy. Tahsildar – Election Files, Files related to Horsley Hills Township Committee, Writ Petition, and his personal service record

(iii) The District Fire Officer confirmed that the fire was under control, with no injuries or fatalities. The investigating officer sent the burnt materials to CFSL, Hyderabad, for analysis to determine the cause, including potential electrical faults or flammable substances. Letters were also sent to the Collector of Annamayya District for information on land transactions related to freehold rights, dotted lands, and lands under Section 22A of the Registration Act.

(iv) Dr. V.B. Rajkamal, Additional Superintendent of Police (Admin), took over the investigation and recorded statements from LW1 to LW64. Based on the CDRs, searches led to the seizure of documents. During the investigation, it was found that T.Gowtham Tej forged the Revenue Divisional Officer's signature on Section 22-A files, resulting in criminal cases under Sections 465 and 468 IPC at Madanapalle I Town police station. The case was then handed to the Crime Investigation Department, with Sri D. Viswanath, DSP, C.I.D., Nellore, leading the investigation.

3. I have heard Sri O. Kailashanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the Respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel on sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and complaint. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced.

5. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that:

(a) The petitioner was the Reven

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 Back to top