Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Chukka Shilpa vs The National Investigation Agency on 7 March, 2025
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
CRIMINAL APPEALS No. 678 of 2024 and 705 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Since both the Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Crime, they
are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common
judgment.
2. Accused No.3 in FIR RC No.02/2022/NIA/HYD is the appellant
in Criminal Appeal No.678 of 2024; whereas A5 in the above said Crime
filed Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2024. Aggrieved by the common order,
dated 29.5.2024, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions No. 689
and 690 of 2024 in S.C.No. 14 of 2024 by the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge – cum – Special Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases, Visakhapatnam, A3 and A5 filed the above appeals. The learned
Special Judge, vide common order, dismissed the above Miscellaneous
Petitions filed by the appellants/accused Nos. 3 and 5 seeking to
enlarge them on bail.
3. Heard Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for Sri U.D. Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the appellants
in both the Criminal Appeals and Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, learned Deputy
Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents.
2
4. Facts succinctly which led to file these Criminal Appeals are
thus:
A case in Crime No.1 of 2022 of Peddabayalu Police Station was
registered for the offences under Sections 365, 346, 143, 144, 147 and
120-B IPC and under Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act 1967’) on 03.01.2022,
based on a report given by the de facto complainant by name Pallepati
Pochamma W/o Balayya to the Superintendent of Police,
Visakhapatnam. It is stated by the de facto complainant in her report
that while her younger daughter by name Radha @ Neelso was
pursuing Nursing Course, the leaders of Chaitanya Mahila Sangham (for
short ‘CMS’) used to visit her daughter’s college and radicalising her
daughter using the ideology of Maoism and in the month of November,
2017 her daughter has been forcibly taken under the guise of providing
medical treatment to someone and her daughter did not return and after
about nine (9) months later, the de facto complainant came to know that
her daughter joined in Proscribed CPI (Maoist) Organization.
(ii) Subsequently, considering the gravity of the offence and other
factors involved in the case, the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, CTCR Division, North Block, New Delhi, vide Order
F.No.11011/43/2022/NIA, dated 31.5.2022 entrusted investigation to
National Investigation Agency (for short ‘NIA’). Thereafter, NIA,
3Hyderabad took up investigation by re-registering the crime as FIR RC
No.02/2022/NIA/HYD of NIA Police Station, Hyderabad on 03.6.2022
under the very same provisions.
(iii) The allegations made against A3 is that she is main active
leader and A5 is the General Secretary of CMS. The accused Nos.3 and
5/ appellants herein along with A4 used to visit the college, where the
de facto complainant’s daughter was studying and radicalising her
daughter using the ideology of Maoism and they along with A4 took the
daughter of the de facto complainant forcibly on 26.12.2017 under the
guise of providing medical treatment to someone at Gadwal. After eight
(8) or nine (9) months, an unknown person came to the house of the
de facto complainant and informed her stating her daughter was a
member of Moist party and warned her not to ask anything about her
daughter and not to cause any trouble to them.
5. Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, strenuously
contends that though the daughter of the de facto complainant was said
to be forcibly taken by the appellants on 26.12.2017, she gave report to
the police on 27.12.2021 i.e., after four years. On the basis of the same,
Crime No.1 of 2022 was registered by Peddabayalu Police. Thereafter,
NIA re-registered the case vide FIR RC No.02/2022/NIA/HYD on
03.6.2022. There is any amount of delay in lodging the report by the
de facto complainant and it is only four years after her daughter was
4
alleged to be forcibly taken away by the appellants. Hence, no credence
could be given to the said report. Learned Senior Counsel further
contends that according to the prosecution, the appellants are members
of CMS, which is not a banned organisation. The CMS is a Progressive
Women Organisation and it works within the parameters of the
Constitution of India and for the emancipation of women from all sorts of
oppression, violence and cultural discrimination. He also contends that
even according to the Investigating Agency, the said CMS is not a
banned organisation and the said CMS is nothing to do with Proscribed
Moist outfit or its ideology and CMS is not any frontal organisation to
Scheduled Proscribed Organisation CPI (Moist). He further contends
that ingredients of the offences under Act 1967 are not made out in the
circumstances of the case. He also contends that there is no material to
show that the appellants are members of Proscribed Organisation CPI
(Moist). Hence, he requests this Court to enlarge the
appellants/accused on bail.
6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the
respondents, opposed for grant of bail to the appellants contending that
the appellants have active role in Proscribed Organisation CPI (Moist).
He further contends that the Investigating Agency has gathered lot of
material to connect the appellants with the Proscribed Moist
Organisation. He further contends that though CMS is not a banned
5
organisation, the appellants are actively involved in Proscribed
Organisation CPI (Moist). He also contends that the Investigating
Agency has already filed a charge sheet and charges also have been
framed by the trial Court in S.C.No.14 of 2024.
7. We have perused the entire material available on record. The
present case involves the charges under
Act 1967 along with other charges under IPC. It is therefore apt to
consider the bail provision envisaged under Section 43-D (5) of Act
1967 before we delve upon to analyze the facts. Section 43-D (5) of the
Act 1967 is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
“Section 43 D – Modified application of certain provisions of the
Code
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person
accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of
this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond
unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of
being heard on the application for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail
or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or
the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against such person is prima facie true.”
A bare reading of Sub-section (5) of Section 43-D shows that it
bars the Special Court from releasing an accused on bail without
6
affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on the
application seeking release of an accused on bail. The proviso to Sub-
section (5) of Section 43-D puts a complete embargo on the powers of
the Special Court to release an accused on bail. It lays down that if the
Court, on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure’, is of the opinion that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such
person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV
and/or Chapter VI of the Act 1967 is prima facie true, such accused
person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond. It is interesting
to note that there is no analogous provision traceable in any other
statute to the one found in Section 43-D (5) of the Act 1967. In that
sense, the language of bail limitation adopted therein remains unique to
Act 1967.
8. As seen from the charge sheet allegations made against A3
and A4 are as follows;
“A3 has been the Joint Secretary of Chaitanya Mahila
Sangham (CMS), an affiliate organisation of the Proscribed
Organisation CPI (Moist), since 2017. She was married to
PKM Prabhakar, an underground Maoist. Prabhakar was killed
during an exchange of fire at Ramaguda in AP in 2016.
Subsequently, in 2022, she got married to D.Satyam, a
journalist in Nigha TV, a Telugu Channel. Being a leader of
CMS, A3 has made an impressionable impact on young minds
7and radicalized them, in order to recruit them to CPI (Moist).
Investigation revealed that, Dongari Devandra (A-3) had
played a key role in recruiting Radha to CPI (Moist). Further,
she had taken Radha to the forests to join her in the party, i.e.,
CPI (Moist).
Evidence against Dongari Devendra (A-3)
a) The statement of complainant Pochamma (Mother of Radha)
and Surya Prakash (brother of Radha) have stated that
Dongari Devendra (A-3) had taken Radha along with her. Both
of them have also stated that subsequently Dongari Devendra
(A-3) had informed them that Radha was working in the party.
b) Protected witness “A” had also mentioned that he has seen
Dongari Devendra (A-3), Dubasi Swapna (A-4) and Chukka
Shilpa (A-5) among others coming to the forest to meet the
leaders of CPI (Maoist) party regularly. And that he saw
Radha being brought by Dongari Devendra (A-3) in the forests
for treatment of CPI Maoists.
c) Protected witness “B” in the statement mentioned that the
leaders of CMS Devendra, Shilpa and Swapna used to
regularly motivate the young girls to work for the poor,
downtrodden, and forced the witness to join the cadres of CPI
(Maoist). However, the witness did not join as it was illegal.
But the witness has clearly mentioned that Radha (one of the
witnesses’ friends) succumbed to the pressure applied by the
above three accused persons and joined the proscribed
organization.
d) Protected witness “C” has also reiterated the statement of
protected witness “B” that the accused Dongari Devendra
(A-3) motivated the witness to join the proscribed CPI (Maoist)
8
organization. However, the witness had high ambitions of
passing group A or Group B service of Telangana State and
did not yield to the pressure applied by the above accused
persons.
e) The protected witness ‘A’ had identified the accused Dongari
Devendra(A-3) and Chukka Shilpa (A-5) during TIP. Further,
from the statement of the witness it is revealed that the
Dongari Devendra (A-3) used to visit the forests of
Peddabayalu and had met the top leaders of CPI (Maoist)
including Akkiraju Haragopal @ RK.
f) Copy of hand written Letter dated 03.01.2019 by Hema
@ Devendra (A-3) to Gopal @ Narasimha Reddy, a member
of SZCM, recovered in Cr. No. 48/2022, Peddabayalu PS, dtd.
27.6.22, reveals about an amount of one lakh rupees which
was sent by the party and for distribution thereof. Further it
discusses about the arrest of one Yangzi, after coming out of
the party. It is mentioned that this has happened because of
the leakage of information due to carelessness.
g) It was also revealed during investigation that Yangzi @
Anusha was arrested during December 2018. Thus, this letter
proves the association and financial transactions between
Appellant/accused Devendra (A-3) with proscribed
organization CPI (Maoist).
h) The Copy of handwritten Letter by Hema@ Devendra
(A-3) to comrade Bhumika@ Vijayalakshmi, a cadre member
of CPI (Maoist) was also recovered. This letter addressed to
Bhumika is mainly for motivating Bhumika to take up good
work for the party. Hema, in the letter also advises Bhumika to
take care of her health and informs that medicines are being
sent.
9
i) Protected Witness A has stated that Vijayalaxmi @
Bhumika is presently an underground Maoist. This letter
reveals the close association of Devendra @ Hema with the
underground cadres.
Based on evidences collected during investigation, it is
revealed he Appellant/accused Dongari Devendra (A-3) in
conspiracy with Co-accused and as part of the terror gang had
recruited Radha to cadres of proscribed organization CPI
(Maoist), thus furthering and supporting banned CPI (Maoist),
and has committed offences Under Sections 120-B, 365 of
IPC and Sections 18,18-B, 20, 38 and 39 of UA (P) Act, 1967.
“A5 is the General Secretary of the Chaitanya Mahila
Sangam (CMS). She is an active member of CMS and closely
associated to the proscribed organisation CPI (Moist). She has
played an active role in indoctrinating the missing girl and
recruiting her to the proscribed organisation CPI (Maoist).
The photographs recovered during the social media
extraction has proved that A5 has been a member of CMS.
The complainant Pochamma and Surya Prakash have
stated that A4 has met the missing girl Radha, many a times in
Radha’s house and have indoctrinated Radha.
Further, the Protected witness-A has stated that the
said witness had seen the accused Chukka Shilpa (A5) in the
forests, when she had come to meet the Moist leaders for
collecting financial assistance for the purpose of activities
outside.
The protected Witness -A has also identified the
accused Chukka Shilpa during the Test Identification
Proceedings conducted in the Special Prison for Women,
Rajahmundry”
10
Evidence against Chukka Shilpa (A-5):
a) The complainant Pochamma (Mother of Radha) and Surya
(brother of Radha) have stated that Chukka Shilpa (A-5)
among others had brain washed her daughter Radha @
Neelso to join the proscribed CPI (Maoist).
b) This statement of the mother and brother of victim is
further corroborated by the statements of protected
witnesses “B” and “C” who clearly state the role of the
above accused in radicalizing not just the victim but also
themselves to join the proscribed CPI(Maoist) organization.
c) Social media extraction proves that she has been a leader
of CMS.
d) The protected witness A had identified the accused Dongari
Devendra A-3) and Chukka Shilpa (A-5) in the jail during TIP.
Further from the statement of the witness it is made known
that the above mentioned accused persons used to visit the
forests of Peddabayalu and had met the top leaders of CPI
(Maoist) including Akkiraju Haragopal @ RK.
e) In the letters seized from Vanthala Ramakrishna @ Ashok
during his arrest in crime No 48/2022 of Peddabayalu PS the
following documents are relevant.
f) One photocopy of handwritten letter dated 25.02.2015
written by Sruthi @ Chukka Shilpa (A-5) addressed to
Bhumika @ Vijayalakshmi, an underground Maoist clearly
brings out her association with the organization. In this letter
A-5 praises the revolutionary poems written by other cadres.
g) One copy of typed letter dated July, 2019 addressed to
Shilpa (A-5) by UG Cadre, Uday (A-1) contains recruitment of
cadres and giving study classes, and Uday directs A-5 to meet
parents of Bhumika and Neelso.
11
h) In another copy of typed letter dated May, 2021 written by
Uday (A-1) to Shilpa (A-5) also discuss certain strategies of
running the organization, CMS in Hyderabad.
Based on evidence collected during investigation accused
Chukka Shilpa (A-5) in conspiracy with other co-accused and
as part of the terror gang had recruited Radha thus furthering
and supporting banned CPI (Moist), and has committed
offences under Section 120B IPC and Sections 18, 18B, 20,
38, 39 of UA (P) Act, 1967.”
9. Further, the statement of the de facto complainant clearly
indicates that the appellants brainwashed her daughter Radha @
Neelso to join Proscribed Organisation CPI (Moist) and the statement of
the brother of the victim also available on record to show that the
appellants forcibly took the daughter of the de facto complainant and
joined her in proscribed organisation CPI (Moist). Apart from the
statements of the mother and brother of Radha @ Neelso, the
statements of the protected witnesses ‘B’ and ‘C’ are also available on
record who have stated not only about the role of the appellants in
radicalising Radha @ Neelso but also they made Radha @ Neelso join
in proscribed organisation CPI (Moist). The statement of Protected
witness-‘A’ also shows that he identified the appellants in the jail during
the Test Identification Parade. It is also alleged that the appellants used
to visit the forests of Peddabayalu and met the top leaders of CPI
(Moist) including Akkiraju Haragopal @ RK. Apart from the above
12
witnesses, letters seized from one Vanthala Rama Krishna @ Ashok
during his arrest in Crime No.48 of 2022 of Peddabayalu Police Station.
Letters dated 25.2.2025 written by A5 addressed to Bhumika @
Vijayalakshmi, an underground Moist is available on record. Another
typed letter dated July, 2019 addressed to A5 by UG Cadre, contains
recruitment of cadres and giving study classes, directing A5 to meet
parents of Bhumika and Radha @ Neelso. Another letter dated May,
2021 is also available to connect the appellants to discuss certain
strategies of running organisation, CMS in Hyderabad. All those letters
have already been filed along with charge sheet.
10. Apart from the above provisions and as seen from the charge
sheet allegations, in the instant case, we are satisfied from the charge
sheet and other material/documents relied upon by the Investigating
Agency that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusations against the appellants-accused Nos. 3 ad 5 are prima facie
true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43-D (5)
of Act 1967 would be applicable for not releasing the appellants-
accused Nos. 3 and 5 on bail. Having regard to the seriousness and
gravity of the alleged offences, the severity of punishment prescribed for
the alleged offences and prima facie material collected during the
course of investigation, the impugned order passed by the trial Court
need not be interfered with.
13
11. For the aforementioned reasons, both the Criminal Appeals
are dismissed. Needless to say that any observation made hereinabove
is only for the purpose of deciding the present Criminal Appeals and the
same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the
matters before the trial Court. Pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.
________________________
JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
_____________________
JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
Date: 07.03.2025
GR
14
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
CRIMINAL APPEALS No. 678 of 2024 and 705 of 2024
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by
Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
GR
Date: 07.03.2025
