##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:16827

APHC010212282026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 435/2026

Between:

1. D EVAREDDY SUBHARAO, S/O KRISHNAMMA NAIDUAGED 35

YEARS, OCC CULTIVATIONR/O. INUGUNTA VILLAGE, OZILI

MANDALNELLORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

2. N AKKA BUJJAMMA, W/O BALARAJU,AGE 47 YEARS, R/O

INUGUNTA VILLAGE,OZILI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following

2

2026:APHC:16827

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 435 of 2026

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 read

with 442 of BNSS questioning the order dated 13.04.2026 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.134 of 2026 in S.C.No.235 of 2023 on the file of VII Additional

District Judge, Gudur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

herein is Accused No. 8. The offences alleged against the petitioner fall under

Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The petitioner could not appear before the

Court on 06.04.2026, when the matter was posted for fixing the trial schedule.

The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner/Accused No.8

had filed an application seeking to condone his absence on that particular

date; however, due to a mistake, he was referred to as Accused No.9. In fact,

there are only eight (08) accused in the said case. Owing to this mistake, the

absence petition was dismissed, and the learned trial Court issued a non-

bailable warrant (NBW) and adjourned the matter to 29.04.2026. Meanwhile,

the petitioner filed an application to recall the warrant issued against him,

which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that no medical

report was filed to establish that he was suffering from diarrhoea on

06.04.2026.

3

2026:APHC:16827

4. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready to

appear before the Court and that his absence on that particular date was not

deliberate. Though an application was filed to condone his absence, it

mistakenly referred to him as Accused No.9. The learned counsel would also

submit that the petitioner has been attending the Court without fail, and an

opportunity may be granted to him to appear before the Court and defend his

case, as he is facing allegations punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of

the IPC.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court

may pass appropriate orders.

6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material

placed before this Court, it is noted that S.C. No.235 of 2023 was posted for

fixing the trial schedule. The presence of counsel for the petitioner/Accused

No. 8 was very much available before the trial Court. The trial schedule could

have been fixed even in the absence of the accused, as he was represented

by his counsel on record on the said date, i.e., 06.04.2026. Since charges had

already been framed and the matter was posted only for fixing the trial

schedule, the presence of the accused before the trial Court was not

necessary. This Court is unable to understand how the matter was adjourned

repeatedly solely for the purpose of fixing the trial schedule.

7. In that view, since the presence of the petitioner on 06.04.2026 was not

required, and as an application had been filed to condone his absence

4

2026:APHC:16827

(though mistakenly mentioning him as Accused No. 9 instead of Accused No.

8), the learned trial Judge ought not to have issued a non-bailable warrant

against the petitioner.

8. In light of the aforesaid mentioned premise,