THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8674 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to cancel the bail

dated 30.06.2025 passed in Crl.P.No.7215 of 2025 by this

Court.

2. Heard Sri P. Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner - State as well as Sri Shaik Mohammed Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent - accused.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner - State submitted that the anticipatory bail earlier granted to the respondent/A-15 was liable to be cancelled, as the material on record clearly showed that the respondent was the main conspirator and abettor in the planned murder of the deceased Kanithi Sathish. He further submitted that the conspiracy was hatched at the BRS office under the leadership of the respondent, and that all accused, including those arrested, had consistently disclosed his role during their

confessions, which was further supported by the statements of injured eyewitnesses. He contended that Section 18A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act barred the grant of anticipatory bail, particularly when the respondent knew the caste of the deceased and caste-based abuses were made during the offence. He further contended that investigation was still in progress, custodial interrogation of the respondent/accused No.15 was necessary, and if bail continued, there was a real likelihood of him tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or influencing the investigation, especially given his political influence and previous criminal history. Therefore, he prayed the Court to cancel the bail granted to the respondent by allowing this Criminal Petition.

4. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem and another 1 , wherein in paragraph No.27, it is held as follows:

1 (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases 768

“27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words : (SCC p. 224, para

24)

“24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC

349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.””

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- accused submitted that while granting bail, this Court had already considered the severity of the allegations against the petitioner, and it had also observed that the petitioner was present at the scene of offence and that after the commission of the offence, he had abetted t