Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Between vs Rajesh Ranjan (Supra) on 8 May, 2026
APHC010021402026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 343, 344, 345 & 346 of 2026
Criminal petition No.343 of 2026:
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE II TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P.,AMARAVATI.
...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
1. PILLI PADMA, W/O. MURTHY, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 17-7-
25, KANDIPILLI STREET, RAILWAY PEDDAGANTYADA, NEAR
GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
2. KAKARA SATYA @ SATYA KAKARA, W/O. LATE APPARAO, AGED
39 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 32-31-19, KOBBARI THOTA, ALLIPURAM
JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.
3. BELLAPU SURI BABU SURI, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED 39 YEARS,
R/O. D. NO. 15-64/1(2), BAPUJI NAGAR, MADHURAVADA,
KOMMADI, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.
...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos.5 to 7:
Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent/Accused Nos.5 to 7:
1. AYESHA AZMA S
Criminal Petition No.344 of 2026:
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE II TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P., AMARAVATI.
... ...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
2
TANDURU MALLESWAR PARTHASARADHI REDDY, S/O. RAM
MALLESWAR REDDY, AGED YEARS, N/O.D.NO.4-10-203, PRASANTHI
NAGAR, PULIVENDULA, KADAPA DISTRICT, R/O. 2ND FLOOR,
HOUSE NO.1, AMRUTHA NILAYAM, 5TH CROSS, NMH LAYOUT,
SIDEDAHALLI, PESARAGATTA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED No.2
Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent/Accused No.2:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.345 of 2026:
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE II TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P., AMARAVATI.
...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
SUNKESULA SUMAN, S/O. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 32 YEARS, ICU
TECHNICIAN, R/O. D.NO. 4-45, HARIJANAWADA, THIPPAREDDIPALLI,
PENDLIMARRI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED No.17
Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent/Accused No.17:
1. T DIWAKAR REDDY
The Court made the following:
Criminal Petition No.346 of 2026:
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE II TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P.,AMARAVATI.
...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
MAJJARI VELU KONDAIAH, S/O. M. KONDAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, OT
TECHNICIAN, N/O. NAGASANIPALLI, KHAJIPETA MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT, R/O. NAGARAJUPETA, SUNRISE HOSPITAL, KADAPA
TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED No.16
3
Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent/Accused No.16:
1. AYESHA AZMA S
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant criminal petitions under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) have been filed by the
Petitioner / State seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondents /
Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17 vide Orders dated 05.01.2026 in
Crl.M.P.Nos.347, 348, 349 and 359 of 2025 by the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in connection with Crime No.179 of
2025 of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant is
the mother of the deceased namely Yamuna. On 06.11.2025, the said
Yamuna left the house stating that she was going to Araku Valley.
Subsequently, on 11.11.2025 at about 04:50 hours, the son of the de facto
complainant received a phone call from the mobile phone of Yamuna
informing that she had died at Tirupati. During enquiry, the caller disclosed her
name as Pilli Padma and informed that Yamuna had died when she came to
sell her kidney.
It is further alleged that, upon contacting one Suri, who was acquainted
with the deceased Yamuna, the de facto complainant was informed that he
was with Pilli Padma and Satya at a lodge in Tirupati and that the said Pilli
Padma and Satya had, through mediation, taken Yamuna to Global Multi
4
Specialty Hospital, Madanapalle, where a kidney transplantation surgery was
performed on 09.11.2025 and her kidney was transplanted to another person.
It is alleged that on 10.11.2025 between 05:00 a.m. and 06:00 a.m., Yamuna
died and thereafter her body was shifted to Tirupati. On the instructions of the
de facto complainant, the said Suri dialled 112 and informed the police,
pursuant to which the Tirupati Police secured the said persons and handed
them over to Madanapalle II Town Police Station, as the surgery had allegedly
taken place at Madanapalle.
It is the further case of the prosecution that, upon enquiry at
Madanapalle, it came to light that Doctor Anjaneyulu of Global Multi Specialty
Hospital, SBI Colony, Madanapalle, along with another doctor from Bangalore,
in collusion with Balu, a Dialysis Technician working at Government Hospital,
Madanapalle, Mehraz, a Dialysis Technician working at Government Hospital,
Kadiri, and others namely Pilli Padma, Satya and Suri, induced the deceased
Yamuna with money and got her kidney transplanted illegally, due to which
she died. It is also alleged that thereafter the Accused attempted to send the
dead body of the deceased to her native village by suppressing the true facts
relating to her death.
3. Heard Sri M.Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by
Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of
Petitioner / State and Ms.Ayesha Azma, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy and Sri
T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents / Accused.
5
4. Learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of Petitioner / State would submit
that the Respondents / Accused involved in a grave and organized illegal
kidney transplantation racket and that the investigation is still at a crucial and
nascent stage. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the
Investigating Officer conducted investigation by visiting the scene of offence,
preparing rough sketch, seizing material objects used for kidney surgery under
cover of Scene Observation Report, conducting inquest over the deceased in
the presence of mediators and forwarding the material objects to Sri
Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati for Histopathology examination. It is
further submitted that as many as 22 witnesses were examined and their
statements were also recorded.
Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that in the above crime,
22 persons were arrayed as Accused and several Accused persons including
the Respondents herein were arrested during investigation. During the course
of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed an application seeking police
custody of the Accused persons for custodial interrogation. However, during
pendency of the said petition, the learned Sessions Judge mechanically
granted bail to the Respondents without considering the gravity of the offence
and the vital role played by the Respondents / Accused.
Learned Public Prosecutor would argue that the investigation is
incomplete, since the Histopathology Report is yet to be received from Sri
Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati and the Investigating Agency is still
making efforts to trace absconding Accused persons and ascertain whether
6
any other illegal organ transplantations had taken place. It is further submitted
that unless the Accused persons are subjected to custodial interrogation, it is
not possible to collect vital information regarding the nature of the offence,
involvement of other persons and the illegal transplantation activities carried
on by the Accused persons.
Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that the offence
committed by the Respondents / Accused is not a result of sudden
provocation, but a well-planned and organized crime involving exploitation of
poor and destitute persons for illegal organ transplantation. It is contended
that the Respondents, though only trainee doctors in the Urology Department,
consciously participated in conducting unauthorized kidney transplantation in
violation of the provisions of the law. According to the learned Public
Prosecutor, such offences have serious adverse impact on society and create
panic among the public.
It is further contended that the Court below granted bail merely on the
ground of long incarceration and absence of antecedents, without properly
appreciating the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of investigation and
the pendency of the police custody petition. Learned Public Prosecutor would
therefore submit that the impugned order granting bail is erroneous, contrary
to settled principles governing grant of bail and liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondents / Accused would submit
that the Respondents are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the
present crime without there being any direct material connecting them with
7
the alleged illegal kidney transplantation racket. It is contended that the
Respondents were only trainee doctors in the Urology Department and were
discharging their routine academic and professional duties. Mere presence
in the department or participation in medical procedures as part of training
cannot automatically amount to involvement in any illegal activity.
Learned counsel would further submit that the investigation has
substantially progressed, as the Investigating Officer already visited the
scene of offence, seized material objects, examined 22 witnesses and
recorded their statements. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by
continued detention of the Respondents. It is also contended that the
alleged Histopathology Report is only a scientific opinion and its pendency
cannot be a ground to indefinitely deny liberty to the Respondents.
It is further argued that the Respondents have fully cooperated with
the investigation and have been complying with the conditions imposed by
the Court while granting bail to them. Learned counsel would contend that
custodial interrogation cannot be sought as a matter of routine, particularly
when the prosecution already collected the relevant documents, material
objects and witness statements.
Learned counsel would also submit that the Respondents are young
trainee doctors with no criminal antecedents and their continued
incarceration would seriously affect their future career and reputation. It is
contended that the Court below, after considering the material available on
record, rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting bail subject to
8
conditions and the said order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity
warranting interference.
It is further submitted that the prosecution has not placed any material
to show that the Respondents derived any monetary benefit or
independently performed any unauthorized transplantation procedure.
Therefore, the contention regarding organized crime or societal panic is
unsustainable as against these Respondents.
Learned counsel would finally submit that bail once granted should
not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are supervening
circumstances, misuse of liberty or violation of bail conditions. Since no
such circumstance is shown by the prosecution, the present petitions are
liable to be dismissed.
Point for Determination
6. Having heard the submissions on both the sides and on perusal of the
material on record, the following question emerges for determination:
Whether the orders passed by the learned trial Judge granting bail to
Respondents / Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17 suffer from any illegality,
perversity, or non-consideration of material facts warranting interference
by this Court by cancelling the bail granted to them?
Determination by the Court
7. It is alleged that Respondent / Accused No.2, a trainee doctor in the
Urology Department at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, illegally
conducted two kidney transplantation surgeries at the hospital of Accused
9
Nos.1 and 22, despite trainee doctors being prohibited from performing
surgeries outside the institution. The Respondent / Accused No.2 allegedly
conducted the surgeries without obtaining consent from the donor’s family
members and without complying with mandatory medical and legal
procedures. It is further alleged that he acted in collusion with the hospital
management, operation theatre technicians, and mediators in an organized
organ trafficking racket by inducing persons to donate kidneys for monetary
consideration.
8. The role attributed to Respondent / Accused No.5 is that, she came
into contact with Accused No.4 while taking her mother for dialysis treatment
at Medicover Hospital, where Accused No.4 allegedly requested her to
arrange a kidney donor. Thereafter, she became acquainted with Accused
No.6, who had earlier undergone kidney transplantation, and was allegedly
offered commission for procuring kidney donors. Subsequently, she came
into contact with Accused No.10, who informed her that Accused No.13 was
in need of a kidney donor and also offered commission for arranging the
same. It is further alleged that, in the meantime, Accused No.6 informed
Accused No.5 that one Yamuna (deceased) was willing to donate her
kidney. Thereupon, the Respondent / Accused No.5 allegedly informed
Accused No.4 that she had arranged two donors, namely the deceased
Yamuna and another person by name Harika, and requested for
transplantation arrangements. She is further alleged to have contacted
Accused No.10 for facilitating kidney transplantation to Accused No.13 and
10
got the transplantation surgery conducted through Accused Nos.2 and 16 to
20 in the hospital of Accused No.1.
9. It is alleged against the Respondent / Accused No.6 that she came
into contact with Accused No.5 at Visakhapatnam and was allegedly offered
commission for arranging kidney donors. It is further alleged that Accused
Nos.5 and 6 approached the deceased Yamuna and induced her to donate
her kidney on the promise of payment of Rs.6,00,000/-. Thereafter, they
allegedly contacted Accused No.7, with whom the deceased was cohabiting,
and convinced them for the transplantation. It is further alleged that, despite
the deceased initially being declared unfit for transplantation due to her
health condition, Accused No.6, along with others, facilitated the
transplantation for illegal gain, which ultimately resulted in the death of the
deceased.
10. The role attributed to Respondent / Accused No.7 is that he was
acquainted with Accused No.6 and was allegedly involved in arranging the
deceased Yamuna as a kidney donor in consideration of commission. It is
alleged that the Respondent / Accused No.7 had been cohabitating with the
deceased and, owing to their financial difficulties, induced and facilitated her
agreement to donate her kidney for a consideration of Rs.6.00 lakh. Though
the deceased was initially rejected for transplantation due to her health
condition, it is alleged that Accused No.7 continued to assist in the process,
pursuant to which she later underwent tests and was accepted as a donor. It
is further alleged that, after the transplantation surgery, the amounts
11
received were distributed among the Accused persons, including payment of
commission to Accused Nos.5 to 7.
11. It is alleged against Respondent / Accused No.16 that he has been
working as an Operation Theatre Technician at Komma Hospital, Kadapa,
and is acquainted with Accused No.2, for whom he used to assist in urology-
related surgeries at Holistic Hospital. Subsequently, Accused No.2 informed
him about illegal kidney transplantation surgeries being conducted at Global
Hospital, Madanapalle, without permissions, and offered him Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.6,000/- per surgery. Pursuant thereto, Respondent / Accused No.16
allegedly participated in the surgery of the deceased along with Accused
Nos.17 to 20.
12. It is alleged that Respondent / Accused No.17 was working as an ICU
and Operation Theater Technician at Komma Hospital, Kadapa Town, and
came into contact with Accused No.4 through Accused No.16. Accused
No.4 allegedly informed him about unauthorized kidney transplantation
surgeries being conducted at Global Hospital, Madanapalle, and promised
payment of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per surgery. It is further alleged that, at
the request of Accused No.4, Respondent / Accused No.17 transported
Accused Nos.18 to 20 to Madanapalle, where they participated in the
surgery of the deceased.
13. It is a settled law vide a catena of decisions from the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Court that the following illustrative list of principles
are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:
12
a. the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution;
b. reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or
apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
c. reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
d. character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
e. larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations.
14. It is essential now to discuss a few precedents on cancellation of bail.
Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri
Darshan1, while cancelling the bail granted to the Accused in a murder
case, held as follows:
“20.4.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-
sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise,
the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself,
outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating
material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of
tampering with witnesses.
20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this
Court categorically held that“The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on
the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without
taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702
13in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence,
and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and
inducement when on bail. … non-consideration of the same and
grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated
the order…”
20.4.3. In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (supra), this Court held
that the possibility of the accused absconding or threatening
witnesses had a direct bearing on the fairness of the trial. In
serious offences, such apprehensions – when reasonably
supported by record – must weigh against the grant of bail.
24. On a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the order of the
High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails
to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a
case involving charges under Sections 302, 120B, and 34
IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion,
marked by significant omissions of legally relevant facts.
Moreover, the High Court undertook an extensive examination of
witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged
contradictions and delays – issues that are inherently matters for
the trial Court to assess through cross-examination. The trial
Court alone is the appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility
and reliability of witnesses. Granting bail in such a serious case,
without adequate consideration of the nature and gravity of the
offence, the accused’s role, and the tangible risk of interference
with the trial, amounts to a perverse and wholly unwarranted
exercise of discretion. The well-founded allegations of witness
intimidation, coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial
evidence, further reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail.
Consequently, the liberty granted under the impugned order
poses a real and imminent threat to the fair administration of
justice and risks derailing the trial process. In light of these
circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the present case calls
for the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section
439(2) Cr.P.C.”
(emphasis supplied)
14
15. In Imran v. Mohammed Bhava2, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
“23. Indeed, it is a well-established principle that once bail has
been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its
cancellation. However, this Court in its judgment in Vipan Kumar
Dhir v. State of Punjab has also reiterated, that while
conventionally, certain supervening circumstances
impeding fair trial must develop after granting bail to an
accused, for its cancellation by a superior court, bail, can
also be revoked by a superior court, when the previous
court granting bail has ignored relevant material available
on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact. It was
thus observed:–
“9. …… Conventionally, there can be supervening
circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail
and are non conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to
cancel the bail. This Court in Daulat Ram v. State of
Haryana observed that:
“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.”
10. These principles have been reiterated time and again, more
recently by a 3 Judge Bench of this Court in X v. State of
Telegana and Another.
11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited
decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has
2 2022 SCC Online SC 496
15
considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant
material available on record which renders the order
granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence,
conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue
indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the
threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a
Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the
miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of
criminal justice system…”
24. xxxxxxx
25. xxxxxxx
26. Thus, while considering cancellation of bail already
granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant
scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however, bail
when granted can always be revoked if the relevant material
on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have
not been considered by the lower court. In such instances,
where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order
granting bail is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the decisions
cited herein above, enumerate certain basic principles which
must be borne in mind when deciding upon an application for
grant of bail. Thus, while each case has its own unique factual
matrix, which assumes a significant role in determination of bail
matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard to
the above-mentioned well-settled principles.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta3, held that even without misuse, bail can be cancelled
for grave allegations if the lower court ignored material.
17. Considering the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor
for the Petitioner / State and the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents / Accused, and on perusal of the material available on record,
this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the Respondents
disclose a grave and organized illegal kidney transplantation racket
involving exploitation of economically vulnerable persons for monetary gain.
3 (2011) 6 SCC 189
16
18. The material collected during investigation prima facie reveals that the
deceased Yamuna was induced to donate her kidney for financial
consideration and that the transplantation was allegedly carried out in
violation of mandatory statutory requirements and medical protocols. The
allegations further disclose that several persons involved in in arranging
donors, facilitating transplantation procedures, transporting participants and
conducting surgeries without lawful authorization. The investigation, as
placed before this Court, is still in progress. The Investigating Officer has
already visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, seized material
objects used in the kidney transplantation surgeries, conducted inquest over
the deceased and forwarded the material objects to Sri Venkateswara
Medical College, Tirupati for Histopathology examination. Statements of 22
witnesses have also been recorded. However, the Histopathology Report is
still awaited and efforts are continuing to trace absconding Accused persons
and ascertain the full extent of the illegal transplantation activities.
19. This Court finds considerable force in the submission of the learned
Public Prosecutor that custodial interrogation of the Respondents is
necessary for effective investigation into the larger conspiracy, involvement
of other persons, source of monetary transactions and the manner in which
unauthorized transplantation procedures were conducted. The record further
reveals that an application seeking police custody of the Accused persons
was pending consideration when the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to
the Respondents.
17
20. The allegations against Respondent / Accused No.2 are of serious
nature. Prima facie material indicates that though he was only a trainee
doctor in the Urology Department at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical
Sciences, he allegedly conducted kidney transplantation surgeries outside
the institution in clear violation of institutional restrictions and without
following mandatory legal procedures. The allegations further prima facie
indicate his active participation in conducting unauthorized surgeries in
collusion with other accused persons.
21. Similarly, the allegations against Respondent / Accused Nos.5, 6 and
7 disclose their active involvement in identifying and procuring kidney
donors by inducing poor persons with monetary promises. The material on
record prima facie indicates that they facilitated the transplantation of the
deceased despite awareness regarding unfitness for transplantation and
that the transplantation ultimately resulted in her death.
22. The role attributed to Respondent / Accused Nos.16 and 17 also
cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The investigation prima facie reveals
that they knowingly participated in the unauthorized transplantation
surgeries for monetary consideration and assisted in organizing the
operation along with other accused persons.
23. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents that the
Respondents are only trainee doctors or supporting staff and that no direct
material is available against them cannot be accepted at this stage,
particularly in view of the prima facie allegations regarding their participation
18
in the illegal transplantation procedures. The gravity of the offence, the
organized nature of the crime and the serious societal impact flowing from
illegal organ trafficking are relevant considerations while deciding the
question of bail.
24. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have granted bail mainly on
the grounds of long incarceration and absence of criminal antecedents
without adequately considering the seriousness of the allegations, the stage
of investigation, the pendency of the police custody petition and the
necessity for custodial interrogation. Admittedly, in the present case,
Accused Nos.5 to 7 have been in judicial custody since 15.11.2025,
Accused Nos.16 and 17 from 25.11.2025 and Accused No.2 from
04.12.2025, whereas, the date of the impugned orders is 05.01.2026. Thus,
the duration of custody at the time of consideration of bail was
comparatively short and cannot, by itself, be construed as long incarceration
warranting enlargement on bail, particularly when the investigation was still
at a crucial stage. The records further indicate that the investigating agency
had sought police custody and asserted the necessity for custodial
interrogation for effective investigation into the role of the accused. These
aspects required deeper consideration before extending the discretionary
relief of bail.
25. It is an admitted position that during the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer had moved an application seeking police custody of the
accused persons for the purpose of custodial interrogation, which was
19
pending consideration before the competent court. However, during the
pendency of the said custody application, the learned Sessions Judge
granted bail to the respondents on 05.01.2026 without adverting to the
seriousness and gravity of the offence, the prima facie material collected
during investigation, and the specific allegations indicating the active and
vital role played by the accused persons in the commission of the offence.
26. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate dismissed the custody petition
on 12.01.2026 on the ground that bail had already been granted by the
Sessions Court. Though it is settled law that there is no absolute bar on the
grant of bail during pendency of a police custody application, the judicial
discretion in such matters must be exercised with circumspection,
particularly where custodial interrogation is sought at a crucial stage of
investigation.
27. In the present case, the grant of bail appears to have been made in a
mechanical manner, without due consideration of the nature and
seriousness of the offence, the role attributed to the accused persons, and
the necessity of custodial interrogation for unearthing the complete chain of
events. Such an order has the effect of frustrating the ongoing investigation
and undermining the interest of justice.
28. It is well settled that bail granted in disregard of material
circumstances, or without proper application of mind to relevant factors, is
liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction for cancellation of bail.
The paramount consideration in such cases is whether the accused, if
20
enlarged on bail, would impede the investigation, tamper with evidence, or
influence witnesses. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the bail granted to the respondents warrants
cancellation, as it suffers from non-consideration of relevant factors and is
likely to prejudice a fair and effective investigation.
29. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the accusations, the
stage of investigation, the requirement of custodial interrogation and the
prima facie material available on record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order granting bail to the Respondents / Accused
Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
30. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the Orders dated
05.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.Nos.347, 348, 349 and 359 of 2025 by the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in connection with
Crime No.179 of 2025 of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle granting bail
to the Respondents / Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17, are hereby set
aside and the bail granted to them stands cancelled. Respondents /
Accused are directed to surrender before the concerned Jurisdictional Court
within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing
which the Investigating Agency is at liberty to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law to secure their custody. After surrender, the
Respondents / Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17 are at liberty to file fresh
applications for bail. On such application, the Court concerned has to take
decision on its own merits.
21
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:08.05.2026
Dinesh
22
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 343, 344, 345 & 346 of 2026
DATE:08.05.2026
Dinesh
