##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:1950

APHC010373642020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 24905/2020

Between:

Ambati Venkata Mahalakshmi, ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the

respondents, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2. Sri Narasimha Rao, learned counsel representing Sri S.V.V.S.V.

Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent Nos.1 to 4

have not taken any steps for cancellation of the bail granted to the

accused/respondent Nos.5 to 14 in Crime No.217 of 2018 on the file of the

Malkipuram Police Station, East Godavari District. It is submitted that the

2

2026:APHC:1950

unofficial respondents have committed a grave offence punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity,

“the IPC”). The learned counsel further submits that, at the time of filing of the

writ petition, the case was at the stage of PRC.

3. Sri Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on

instructions, submits that an application seeking cancellation of the bail

granted to respondent Nos.5 to 14 was filed; however, the said application

was returned by the jurisdictional Court.

4. Be that as it may, if respondent No.3 or respondent No.4 have not

chosen to file any application seeking cancellation of bail, the petitioner, being

the aggrieved person/victim/de facto complainant, has the right to file an

application seeking cancellation of bail. It appears that much water has flown

under the bridge by now. In view of the alternate effective and efficacious

remedy available to the petitioner, the filing of the present writ petition is

misconceived.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to

the petitioner to approach the competent Court seeking cancellation of bail, if

the case has not already ended either in acquittal or conviction. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________

Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

Date: 28.01.2026

KMS

3

2026:APHC:1950

104

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.24905 of 2020

Date: 28.01.2026

KMS