The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.23 on bail in Crime No.179 of 2025 of Madanapalle II Town Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(2), 105 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 18, 19 and 21 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA), 1994 (for brevity ‘the THOT Act’).

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Seri K.V. Aditya Chowdary, The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been implicated belatedly, primarily on the basis of the statement of a co-accused and his family members. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had no role in the surgery or the alleged medical negligence, and the offences alleged against him are not prima facie made out. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, his police custody is over, and the material evidence has already been seized. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to other accused in the same crime, including the accused allegedly involved in the actual surgery. Having regard to the Petitioner’s age, period of incarceration, and absence of any further custodial necessity, the learned Counsel prays for grant of bail, undertaking that the Petitioner will cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith and Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutors, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that, if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the both the learned Counsel. I have perused the record.

In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.23 is entitled for grant of bail?”

As seen from the record, so far, 24 witnesses have been examined. The Investigating Officer has taken the Petitioner into custody for custodial interrogation for about 12 or 13 days. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.23 is that the money was transferred through him. The Petitioner was arrested on 12.09.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 34 days. The marriage of the Petitioner is scheduled for 28.10.2026, and he has filed certain documents in support thereof. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has also confirmed the genuineness of the documents. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in SLP (Crl.) No.11245 of 2026, granted bail to the accused, Majjari Velu Kondaiah . Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No.10235 of 2026, granted bail to the accused, Tanduru Malleswar Parthasaradhi Reddy .

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.23, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.23 on bail with some stringent conditions.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:

i. The Petitioner/Accused No.23 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) wit