SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6213

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SRI T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3591/2025|APHC010168272025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Devi Satya Sri
For the Respondents: VENKATASUBBAIAH V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The court emphasized that bail should be denied where serious allegations exist, the risk of witness tampering is evident, and the investigation stage is crucial.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 r/w. 149 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) - Bail application - Accused sought regular bail for alleged involvement in rioting and property damage. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Considerations for Bail - Grave nature of allegations, character of evidence, risks of tampering with witnesses, and status of investigation are pertinent in bail determinations. (Paras 6, 17, 18)

(C) Justification for Dismissal of Bail - Accused poses risk of obstructing investigation and witness tampering due to ongoing inquiries and serious charges against him. (Paras 36, 37)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, associated with a political group, allegedly led an attack on the opposition party office resulting in damage to property and intimidation of the de facto complainant from a scheduled caste community. The petitioner claimed political malice behind the charges. (Paras 1-3, 9-10)

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner, noting multiple witness statements and CCTV footage suggesting involvement and potential risks related to witness tampering. (Paras 36, 38)

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the gravity of the allegations and potential risks to the ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the allegations, the risk of tampering with witnesses, and the seriousness of the offences, particularly under the scheduled castes act, justified the refusal of bail.

Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks bail under specific criminal charges. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's argument hinges on faulty investigation and political bias. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court hears both parties and their arguments. (Para 5 , 6)
4. factors affecting the grant of bail. (Para 7 , 15 , 18)
5. ongoing investigation requires caution before granting bail. (Para 8 , 19 , 36 , 37)
6. legal proceedings must follow due process, highlighting investigational flaws. (Para 20 , 22 , 26)
7. bail application dismissed on grounds of potential witness tampering. (Para 38 , 39)

ORDER:

1) Under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ' BNSS '), this Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner herein/A.71 seeking regular bail, in Cr.No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as the 'I.P.C.') and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (referred to as ‘the Act’).

2) The prosecution's case, as outlined in the report dated 22.02.2023, is as follows:

(i) One Mudunuri Satya Vardhan, the de facto complainant, works as a computer operator in the Gannavaram Telugu Desam Party office and belongs to the SC Madiga community. On 20.02.2023 in the evening, Pitta Mahesh, driver of Kalyani, was in the office at about 5.00 P.M. The local MLA-Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan came in two black Scorpio cars (AP 39 LR 0333, AP 39 LB 0333) and stopped in the front of party office and threatened that today itself the Telugu Desam Party is over and went away by observing the surroundings.

(ii) At about 5.30 P.M., the followers of the YCP party belonging to Gannavaram Constituency, including the petitioners herein and other accused, attacked altogether and entered the office and shouted “jai Vallabhaneni Vamsi" and threw stones and illegally entered the party office with deadly weapons and trying to break the furniture, two computers and two televisions and then one Volupalli Mohan Ranga Rao, Yatendra Ramakrishna, Gondi Paramdamaiah, Mulupuri Prabhukanth and Pothumarthi Hemanth of YCP party said to him and Mahesh with touching the caste of the defacto complainant and told that all the furniture in the party office was smashed with sticks, cricket wickets and stones. Another is damage to the three cars which are parked in the compound. Rabbani poured petrol on a car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555, the said car was burnt, and the entire episode took place before the Police. All the YCP rowdy leaders illegally formed a group; they attacked their Telugu Desam Party office, destroyed the furniture and set cars on fire, threatening to kill all the people, saying that they would kill anyone who came across their Vamsi. The accused attacked their Telugu Desam Party office with the instigation of the local Legislator Vallabhaneni Vamsi as an illegal group. They insulted the defacto complainant in the name of his caste.

3) It is contended in the petition that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as A.71 in Crime No.137 of 2023, despite the absence of any reference to his name in the complainant’s report or any specific acts attributed to him. The offences, based on political rivalry, are baseless. Sections 436, 450 IPC , and the SCs & STs (POA) Act are inapplicable. The investigation under F.I.R.No.136 of 2023 has been completed, with a charge sheet filed. Cr.No.137 of 2023 is merely an additional charge based on the same facts. He has cooperated fully with the investigation. Despite his earlier bail application (Crl.M.P.No.156/2025) being dismissed, several co-accused have been granted bail by this Court (A5 vide Crl.P.No.5202/2024 and 14 others vide Crl.P.No.5375/2024) and 30 others by the Special Court.

4) The learned Public Prosecutor filed a counter, contending that the present bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable, as provision

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