Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.
Kundheti @ Kundeti Hanumantha Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By Its Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No: 668 of 2025
Decided On : 07-11-2025
For the Appellant : V Lakshmi Harish
For the Respondent: Pardha Saradhi A V, Public Prosecutor
The court established that liberty is the rule and detention the exception in bail matters, particularly when supported by a lack of credible evidence and a progressed investigation.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14 A (2) - Grant of bail - Appeal against rejection of bail application by Special Judge - Appellant contends false implication and lack of evidence - Court emphasizes liberty as the rule, detention as the exception - No supporting evidence for claims of witness tampering or likelihood of absconding - Appellant's long custody without necessity - Balancing severity of allegations and due time served - Judgment of the Apex Court cited on political influence and confessions under evidentiary standards. (Paras 12, 14, 16)
Findings of Court:
Appellant granted bail with stringent conditions including cooperation with investigation and restrictions on travel. (Paras 16)
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continued detention lacks justification given progression in the investigation and absence of reliable evidence against the appellant.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of facts and legal background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defense arguments for bail (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. prosecution's opposition to bail (Para 9) |
| 4. court’s role and points for consideration (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's analysis of the bail request (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. court's final decision and conditions for bail (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Y. Lakshmanaraocriminal, J.
Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2025 has been preferred under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[the SCs & STs (POA) Act] seeking to enlarge the Appellant/Accused No.9 on bail by challenging the order dated 29.04.2025 in Criminal M.P.No1575 of 2025 in Crime No.24 of 2025 of Podalakuru Police Station, on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act–cum– V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore[the learned Special Judge] whereby and whereunder the bail sought by the Appellant/Accused No.9 was dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Respondent No.2, by letter dated 07.12.2023, lodged report against the persons involved in illegal quarrying in an extent of Ac.31.71 cents in survey Nos.697, 699, 751/2, 759/1, 759/2, 924 & 925 of Tatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The case of prosecution, as detailed, has its genesis from a report given by the de-facto complainant, M. Balaji Nayak, District Mines and Geology officer, Nellore, vide Letter No.1872/M/2015 dated 14.02.2025. An FIR was registered as a case in crime No.24 of 2025 dated 16.02.2025 under Sections 447 , 427, 379 read with Section 3 4 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’), Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984(for short ‘PDPP Act’), and Sections 21 (1) and 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’), against Accused Nos.1 to 3.It was mentioned that Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, former Minister, and the present MLA of Telugu Desam Party from Sarvepalli Legislative Constituency started conducting a Dharna at the said quarry on 16.12.2023 with a protest against illegal quarrying operation. Dharna went on till early hours of 19.12.2023. Following evacuation of the Dharna, a visit was made to the quarry site and found that no quarry operations had been carried out since 15.12.2023, based on a representation filed by Y.Vidhyakiranas per the directions of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The quarry was non-operational subsequently.
3. The District Vigilance Squad (DVS) team and technical personnel of the office concerned kept a tab on the site. Later, it was found that some of the residents, purportedly supported by the then ruling party members, had started illegal quarrying activities forcibly.On a follow-up visit, and with inquiry from Village Revenue Officers (VROs) and residents, it was determined that illegal quarrying of Quartz and Feldspar minerals was done and being exported to China through Chennai Port.Notices were sent under Rule 26(1) and (ii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 1966’) to Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy.
4. Aggrieved by the lodging of the FIR, Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Petition No.1950/2025 for quashment of proceedings. A learned single judge of this Court directed the respondent authorities to follow Section 3 5 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) (equivalent to Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.’), as per the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , and also restrained the police from taking coercive action against Accused No.1 pending further orders.
5. On 28.02.2025, the Investigating Officer submitted an Alteration Memo in crime No.24 of 2025 before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate mentioning that during investigation, recording of statements of eleven witnesses was video-graphed, the s
