Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
V Jagadeesan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
APHC010156882026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2394/2026
Between:
1. V JAGADEESAN, S/O VENKATESAN,AGED 33 YEARS, R/O.
D.NO.1/18,KOVIL STREET, ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE,TIRUVALLUR
DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT
AMARAVATI.
2. R RAMESH, S/O. LATE RAMUREDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ARUMBAKKAM VILLAGE, ARCOT KUPPAM
POST, TIRUTTANI TALUK, TIRUVALLUR DIST, TAMILNADU.
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER
DATED 06.04.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.2394 OF 2026.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to release the petitioner/Accused
No. 8 on bail, inquiry and trial in PRC No. 7/2025 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge Court, Nagari and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
2
High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit me to implead proposed
respondent No. 2 as Defacto Complainant as Respondent No.2 to the main
Criminal Petition Case in CrI.P.No.2394 of 2026 and pending Interlocutory
Applications therein, in the interest of justice and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. JAYA PRAKASH MADASU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2394/2026
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has
been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused No.8, seeking regular bail, in
P.R.C.No.7 of 2025, on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Nagari, registered
for the offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhitha (for short “BNS”).
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, R.
Ramesh, an Advocate, lodged a complaint stating that his brother, V.M.
Venkateswar (deceased), was residing at Arumbakkam Village and was in
possession of agricultural lands; that on 23.06.2025, between 2:00 p.m. and
3:00 p.m., while the deceased was returning on his two-wheeler, some
unknown persons followed him in a tractor and, near Patharkadu Village, hit
his vehicle, causing him to fall, after which they attacked him with sickles and
caused his death on the spot; that there was prior enmity between the
deceased and certain persons, including A.1 Venkatesan and others, due to
land disputes, and it is alleged that they conspired to eliminate the deceased
by engaging unknown persons; and that based on the said complaint, the
Vijayapuram Police registered a case in Crime No. 41 of 2025 and took up
investigation.
3. Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner/Accused No.8, Sri Jaya Prakash Madasu, learned counsel for the
4
respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
herein is Accused No. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that the
investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed in this matter, but
there is no material collected by the Investigating Agency to connect the
petitioner to the crime. The case is lodged against the petitioner basing on the
confession of the co-accused i.e., Accused Nos. 2 and 3. Initially, the case
was registered against unknown persons and on suspicion the petitioner was
implicated. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused Nos. 1 to 3
alone are alleged to have participated in the incident, and the allegation
against the petitioner is that he conspired with Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Call data
records are not collected and no witness has spoken about the petitioner
herein. The presence of the petitioner at the place of incident is also not
established. Learned counsel would further submit that, according to the de
facto complainant, who is the brother of the deceased, the petitioner
threatened the witnesses, and to that effect a case has been registered in
Crime No. 127 of 2025; however, the de facto complainant in Crime No. 127
of 2025 is not a witness in the present case as per the charge sheet. Learned
counsel would further submit that the presence of the petitioner at the time of
the alleged conspiracy is stated to be at Arumbakkam, since he is a resident
of that place and an agriculturist. The deceased had disputes with several
5
other persons in the village. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any
conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/defacto complainant would
submit that the Accused Nos. 5 to 9 threatened the eye witnesses in this
matter. He would further submit that the defacto complainant in Crime No.127
of 2025 is a panch witness for inquest and is managing the property of the
deceased. He was threatened by the present petitioner. Learned counsel
finally prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition
and would submit that there is previous enmity between the petitioner and the
deceased. The investigation would reveal that the petitioner played a role in
the conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. The earlier bail
application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026 in
Crl.P.No.406 of 2026. She would further submit that there are no changes of
circumstances from the date of dismissal of earlier bail application. She finally
prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material on record
and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the
petitioner and the fact that there are no change of circumstances from the
date of dismissal of the earlier bail application, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner/accused No.8 on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed.
6
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________________
DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date: 16.04.2026.
UPS
7
94
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2394/2026
Dt.16.04.2026
UPS