Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(AP) 942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI
Y. LAKSHMANARAO, J.
Pushpam Appala Naidu, D/o. Appala Naidu - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Through Deputy Superintendent of Police CID, RO, Nellore – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 3072, 3073 & 3083 of 2026
Decided On : 15-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.V. Aditya Chowdary
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

A Trial Court implementing an appellate bail order acts in a ministerial capacity and lacks the jurisdiction to re-examine the case merits, impose conditions extraneous to the appellate order, or insist on local sureties, as such practices are arbitrary and violate constitutional rights.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406 - Appellate Bail Orders - Implementation by Trial Court - Scope - Role of executing court is ministerial; it cannot impose additional conditions or re-examine merits after appellate court has granted bail.

(B) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21 - Requirement of Local Sureties - Insistence on local sureties for non-resident accused is violative of the right to equality and personal liberty - Courts are directed to accept solvent sureties regardless of residency.

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were convicted under IPC sections but acquitted under section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. Following suspension of sentence and grant of bail by the High Court, the Trial Court rejected the sureties, imposed extraneous requirements, and insisted on local sureties, leading the petitioners to approach the High Court for relief.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interrogating sureties on the magnitude of the offence and ignoring the appellate mandate. It reaffirmed that rejection of sureties on irrelevant grounds is unsustainable and that insistence on local sureties is unconstitutional.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court can impose conditions beyond those specified by the Appellate Court and whether the insistence on local sureties is legally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The executive/ministerial functions of a trial court during bail implementation do not permit re-adjudication of the case merits or the imposition of arbitrary, discriminatory geographic restrictions on sureties.

Result: Criminal Petitions allowed.

COMMON ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANARAO, J.

These three Criminal Petitions, though instituted separately by different accused persons, arise from a common substratum of facts, assail orders passed in analogous proceedings, and raise identical questions of law pertaining to the jurisdiction and conduct of the learned Trial Court in implementing appellate bail orders. Inasmuch as the facts and circumstances governing these three matters are substantially similar and the legal issues raised are common, this Court has deemed it expedient and appropriate to hear and dispose of all three petitions by way of this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No.3072 of 2026 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crl.M.P.No.444 of 2026 in C.C.No.11 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under A.P.P.D.F.E.Act, Nellore.

3. Criminal Petition No.3073 of 2026 has been filed under Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’ by the Petitioner/Accused No.4, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2026 in C.C.No.5 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under A.P.P.D.F.E.Act, Nellore.

4. Criminal Petition No.3083 of 2026 has been filed under Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’ by the Petitioner/Accused No.6, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crl.M.P.No.442 of 2026 in C.C.No.5 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under A.P.P.D.F.E.Act, Nellore.

5. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri K.V. Aditya Chowdary, learned Counsel on record, represented the Petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.3072 and 3073 of 2026. Sri Habibulla Shaik, learned Counsel, appeared and advanced arguments on behalf of the Petitioner in Crl.P.No.3083 of 2026. This Court has heard the learned counsel at length and has carefully considered the submissions advanced before it.

6. The genesis of the present petitions lies in a judgment rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nellore, on 30.03.2026 in C.C.Nos.5 of 2017, 10 of 2022, 11 of 2022, and 14 of 2022. By the said elaborate judgment, the learned Sessions Judge, after due trial, recorded a finding that the accused persons before him were not guilty of the charge framed under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The accused were, however, convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.,’) and sentenced accordingly.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the respective accused persons preferred Criminal Appeals before this Court. This Court, upon consideration of the appeals, was pleased to suspend the sentences awarded to the respective accused and enlarged them on bail subject to specific conditions, including the execution of a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, surrender of passports to the custody of the court, and a condition prohibiting departure from the country without prior permission of this Court. The aforesaid orders of suspension of sentence and grant of bail were passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.204 of 2026 (in respect of Accused No.2), in Crl.A.No.205 of 2026 (in respect of Accused No.4), and in Crl.A.No.207 of 2026 (in respect ofAccused No.6).

8. In implementation of the aforesaid appellate orders, the respective accused persons presented themselves before the learned Trial Court and sought to furnish sureties in terms of the conditions stipulated by this Court. However, the learned Sessions Judge, instead of giving effect to the appellate mandate in its letter and spirit, proceeded to scrutinise and cross-examine the tendered sur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document