Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Padala Ramana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 July, 2026
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010283342026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4563/2026
Between:
1. PADALA RAMANA, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS,SECURITY GAURD, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLI
DIST.,ANDHRA PRADESH- 531116.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP.BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, THROUGH STATIONHOUSE OFFICER,
NARSIPATNAM TOWN POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.
2. YEKA SRI SATYA SIVA PRASAD ALIAS SIVA, , S/O. RAJABABU,
HINDU,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, K VELAMA BY CASTE, YSRCP
LEADER,R/O. D.NO. 4-173, DHANIMIREDDY VEEDHI,
NARSIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY,ANAKAPALLI DIST.
3. SURLA APPALANAIDU ALIAS BALIGATTAM NAIDU, , S/O.
DEMUDU,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CAST BY K VELAMA, R/O.
BALIGATTAM VILLAGE,NARSIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, ANAKAPALLI
DIST.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. V V SATISH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
1. P NANILU NAIDU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, „the BNSS‟), by the Petitioner/De-
facto complainant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent
Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.3 and 4 in connection with Crl.M.P.No.190 of 2026
in Crime No.60 of 2026 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Narsipatnam.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2026 at about 8:30 p.m.,
while the de facto complainant was on duty as a security guard at the Srushti
Kshetram construction site, the Petitioner/Accused, along with others, came to
the spot in a car. They allegedly damaged a motorcycle at the site, wrongfully
restrained the complainant, assaulted him causing injuries, and threatened
him with dire consequences.
4. Mr. V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
impugned order granting bail is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled
principles governing the grant of bail, particularly having regard to the gravity
of the offence and the grievous injuries sustained by the victim. It is submitted
that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the seriousness of the
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
allegations, the medical evidence, and the fact that the investigation was at a
nascent stage, with the prime accused yet to be apprehended and crucial
evidence still to be collected. It is further contended that the accused are
politically and financially influential persons who are likely to tamper with the
prosecution evidence, threaten witnesses, and obstruct a fair investigation.
The Petitioner also submits that the reasons assigned by the Court below for
granting bail are unsustainable and contrary to the settled law laid down by
the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail
granted to the Respondents.
5. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
submits that the henchmen of Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.3 and 4
threatened the Petitioner/De-facto complainant with dire consequences,
thereby violated the bail conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court. He
further submits that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration the
gravity and seriousness of the offences while granting bail and released the
accused within a short span of time. He, therefore, prayed that the Criminal
Petition be allowed.
6. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and
3/Accused Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petition is devoid of merit, as there is
no material to establish that the accused has misused the liberty granted by
the Court. It is contended that the accused has faithfully complied with all the
conditions of bail, has neither attempted to tamper with the prosecution
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
evidence nor influenced any witness, and has been regularly appearing before
the trial Court. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed
and the charge sheet has been filed. In the absence of any supervening
circumstance or cogent material demonstrating misuse of liberty, the
extraordinary power of cancellation of bail cannot be invoked. The learned
counsel further contends that the petitioner is, in effect, seeking a review of the
order granting bail, which is impermissible in proceedings for cancellation of
bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
8. 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 is entitled for cancellation of bail?”
9. As seen from the record, the alleged offence took place on 24.05.2026.
The FIR was registered in Crime No.60 of 2026 for the offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, „the BNS‟). As the Petitioner
sustained grievous injuries, the Investigating Officer subsequently added
Section 118(2) of „the BNS‟.
10. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 06.05.2026 and
produced before the learned Magistrate. They were remanded to judicial
custody on 07.05.2026 for a period of fifteen days. By order dated 11.05.2026,
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
the learned Trial Court enlarged Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on bail, observing
that they had been in judicial custody since 06.05.2026, that L.Ws.1 to 5 had
been examined, the scene observation report had been prepared, and the
rough sketch of the scene of offence had also been drawn. The learned Trial
Court further observed that the material part of the investigation had been
substantially completed, except for the filing of the charge sheet. On the said
reasoning, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were released on bail subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 are ordered to be enlarged on
bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- each (Rupees
Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the
satisfaction of this Court.
2. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the Sho,
Narsipatnam Town PS once in a week i.e., on every Thursday in between
9:00 PM and 12:00 noon for a period of two months or until filing of the
charge sheet, which ever is earlier.
3. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall cooperate with the
investigation agency whenever they require their presence.
4. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not threaten the witnesses
in this case or tamper any evidence.
11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgement of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia 1, wherein at
paragraph Nos.17 and 22 it is held as under:
“17…Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider
relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order
granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the
order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne
out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary
for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record,
there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the
seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment. The order of
the High Court in the present case, insofar as it is e relevant reads:
(Rajesh Kumar case¹, SCC OnLine Raj paras 2-4)
1
(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 118
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
22. Without expressing any finding or opinion on the merits of the case, a
case has been made out for setting aside the bail granted by the High
Court. The High Court has manifestly erred in not taking note of the
material which has been adverted to above. The order passed by the High
Court fails to notice material facts and shows a non-application of mind to
the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances referred to earlier
which ought to have been taken into consideration.”
12. In Mahipal case, the charge was under Section 302 of „the I.P.C.,‟
whereas, in the present case, the charge is under Section 118(2) of „the BNS‟.
13. It is not the case of the Petitioner that Respondent Nos.2 and 3
themselves threatened the Petitioner with dire consequences. The specific
allegation of the Petitioner is that the henchmen of Respondent Nos.2 and 3
heckled and threatened him with dire consequences. In that regard, the
Petitioner lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Narsipatnam
Rural Police Station. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary enquiry was conducted,
and the Station House Officer submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Narsipatnam, confirming the allegations made by the Petitioner.
However, the report also records that the persons who allegedly threatened
the Petitioner were not identified, and that the complaint disclosed only a non-
cognizable offence.
13. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit and submitted
that the criminal petition seeking cancellation of bail is misconceived, politically
motivated, and filed only to harass them. They submit that the learned
Magistrate granted bail through a reasoned order after considering the case
diary, the progress of investigation, and imposing stringent conditions, which
they have fully complied with. They deny all allegations of political influence,
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
witness intimidation, or tampering with evidence, stating that the claims are
vague, unsupported, and that key witnesses have already been examined
while material objects are in police custody. They argue that the absconding
status of Accused No. 1 is irrelevant to their case, as each accused is entitled
to independent consideration on the merits of their own case.They assert that
there are no supervening circumstances or misuse of bail warranting
cancellation, and therefore pray for dismissal of the criminal petition.
14. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana2 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation. The relevant paragraph
No.4, is extracted as under:
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation
of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for
cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or
attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or
attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to
the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material
placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another
reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not
be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to
allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during
the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it
decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us
overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-
bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.”
15. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 3 , the Supreme Court observed that
cancellation is warranted where the accused misuses the liberty granted by the Court
and at paragraph No.22 it is held as under:
2
(1995) 1 SCC 349
3
(1986) 4 SCC 481
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026“22. The result of our discussion and the case-law is this : An order for release on
bail made under the proviso to Section 167(2) is not defeated by lapse of time,
the filing of the charge-sheet or by remand to custody under Section 309(2). The
order for release on bail may however be cancelled under Section 437(5) or
Section 439(2). Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are,
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of
justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the
liberty granted to him. The due administration of justice may be interfered with by
intimidating or suborning witnessses, by interfering with investigation, by creating
or causing disappearance of evidence etc. The course of justice may be evaded
or attempted to be evaded by leaving the country or going underground or
otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may abuse the
liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts. Where bail
has been granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) for the default of the
prosecution in not completing the investigation in 60 days, after the defect is
cured by the filing of a charge-sheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail
cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest
him and commit him to custody. In the last mentioned case, one would expect
very strong grounds indeed.”
16. In Puran v. Rambilas4, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that bail can be cancelled
where the order granting bail is unjustified, suffers from serious infirmities, or ignores
relevant material, saying so, wherein at paragraph No.10, it is held as under:
“10. Mr Lalit next submitted that once bail has been granted it should not be
cancelled unless there is evidence that the conditions of bail are being infringed.
In support of this submission he relies upon the authority in the case of Dolat
Ram v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . In this case it
has been held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and
the cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on
different basis. It has been held that very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail
already granted. It has been held that generally speaking the grounds for
cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course
of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. It is,
however, to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely
illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be
where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is
passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons.
Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also
require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be
remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact
on the society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the
trial court has to be corrected.”
4
(2001) 6 SCC 338
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
17. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P5, at paragraph
No.11 it is held as under:
“11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the
considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail
granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after
being released on bail:
(a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him;
(b) flouted the conditions of bail order;
(c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the
powers of the Court to grant bail;
(d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud.
In the present case, none of these situations existed.”
18. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P6, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court at paragraph
No.12, held as under:
“12. We have referred to certain principles to be kept in mind while granting bail,
as has been laid down by this Court from time to time. It is well settled in law that
cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted
himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have
occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail
which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which
should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for
bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations,
indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail.
Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While
dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the violation
of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have
happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the
soundness of the order passed by the court.”
19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of law
laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that no
case is made out for cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The
material placed on record does not disclose any supervening circumstance
warranting interference with the order granting bail. Equally, no material has been
placed before this Court to establish that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have violated
5
(2024) 4 SCC 222
6
(2014) 16 SCC 508
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
the conditions of bail, attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence, intimidated
the witnesses, or otherwise abused the liberty granted to them. The allegations
regarding threats are not directly attributable to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, in any
event, are not supported by sufficient material to justify cancellation of bail. Since the
investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, the
apprehension of interference with the investigation no longer survives. Therefore,
this Court finds no legal or factual basis to invoke the extraordinary power of
cancellation of bail under Section 483(2) of „the BNSS‟.
20. It has to point that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration
the gravity and seriousness of the offences while granting bail and released
the accused within a short span of time.
21. However, considering the apprehension expressed by the Petitioner and with
a view to ensuring a fair and uninfluenced trial, this Criminal Petition is disposed of
strengthening the conditions of bail imposed by the learned Additional Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam, in Crl.M.P.No.190 of 2026 as follows:
i. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the
Station House Officer, Narsipatnam Town Police Station twice in a
week i.e., every Monday and Thursday in between 10:00 A.M., and
1:00 P.M., till the prime witness of the prosecution are examined by
the learned Trial Court.
ii. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.3 and 4 or their henchmen or their
supporters shall not indulge the activities of threatening the
witnesses in the case in any manner.
11
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.2026
22. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the Investigating
Officer is directed to inquire into the allegation that the Respondents/Accused Nos.3
and 4 had instigated or engaged their henchmen to threaten the Petitioner with dire
consequences. If the allegation is found to be true, the Investigating Officer shall
take appropriate steps to ensure the protection of the victim and initiate necessary
action against the Respondents/Accused Nos.3 and 4. A copy of this order shall
forward to the learned Trial Court.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 13.07.2026
KMS
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
12
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.4563 of 2026
Dated 13.07.202639
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAOCRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4563/2026
Date: 13.07.2026
KMS
