Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Allampati Niranjan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:7332 & 7297 of 2025
ORDER:
The Crl.P.Nos.7332/2025 and 7297 of 2025 are heard and disposed of
by way of this common order as the Petitioners in the two petitions are
arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in one FIR i.e., Cr.No.103/2025
of V.Satram Police Station.
2. Provenance of the case of the prosecution is that the de-facto
complainant alleged that Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 instigated and conspired
together with the active aid of the other accused to commit the offences.
Government Orders were issued to help the farmers under their ayucut to
fertile their agriculture lands with mud in the tank on their own transport by
paying a nominal fee of Rs.1/- to the government by producing the relevant
records for permission. The accused hatched a plan to loot the valuable mud
which is worth of Rs.25 crores, in about ten lakh cubic meters and committed
theft of tank mud by using the names of the men of the accused by taking the
passbooks of original farmers by threatening them and submitted the same to
the authorities with the support of Accused No.1 and transported the mud to
their real estate plots and illegally gained money. They also cheated the
government by submitting the documents of the farmers and inserted the
names of their men through illegal means. Accused No.1 in the capacity of
MLA and Minister committed criminal breach of trust. Instead of paying
Rs.231/- for commercial purposes, Accused No.1 paid only for Rs.1/- by
2
fabricating the documents. Based on the report of the de-facto complainant
the Station House Officer, V Satram Police Station, SPSR Nellore registered
FIR No.103/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 409, 465,
467, 471, 506 and 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) and 21(1), 21(4) of Mines and Minerals Development and
Regulation Act, 1957 (for brevity ‘the MMDR Act‘).
3. Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Accused
No.3 submitted that there was no evidence or valid proof that the accused
No.3 indulged in commission of the alleged offence. The Petitioner/Accused
No.3 was harassed pursuant to the change of the Government. There is a
delay of more than two years in lodging the complaint. The Petitioner/Accused
No.3 is innocent; he has not committed any offence; he is the sole
breadwinner of his family; he is ready to abide by any conditions to be
imposed by this Court and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner.
4. Mr. Rupesh Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for Accused No.2 reiterated
the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel.
5. Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently
argued that the Petitioners, with the active aid of Accused No.1, dug mud in
the tank bund unauthorizedly and caused loss of crores of rupees to the
Government. Permission was sought for 2.2 lakh cubic tons, whereas
excavation was done for 12 lakh cubic tons. There are direct eyewitnesses to
the illegal activity of the Petitioners. Custodial interrogation is required for the
Petitioners to know about their involvement in this case and the magnitude of
3
the loss caused to the government and hence granting pre-arrest bail at the
nascent stage of investigation would not augur the investigation well. Hence
urged to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”
POINT:-
8. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, at Para
Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under:
“27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a
prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not
sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie
materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant
considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts
should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea
of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war
which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal
prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta
involved in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient
for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the
aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record
constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the
court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous
and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta
into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail.
The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be
attributed to political bias or vendetta.
53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges:
(iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement,
the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour.
A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit
by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of
Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively.
In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a
confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be
placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since
12025 SCC Online SC 1157
4
such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no
avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an
accused to implicate another co-accused.”
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2,
at Para No.48 it is held as under:
“48. The Law Commission of India, in its 41st Report of 1969, noted that the
necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly due to influential
persons attempting to implicate their rivals in false cases, or disgracing them
by getting them detained in jail. The Report further noted that apart from
false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person
accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty
while on bail, there seems to be no justification to require him first to submit
to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. The
Report recommended that a provision be included for the direction to grant
bail in such cases, and that this power vests in the High Courts and Courts of
Session only….”
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of
Gujarat3, at Para Nos.25, 25.1, 25.2, 25.3, 25.4, 25.5, 25.9, 25.10 it is held as
under:
25. The principles which can be culled out, for the purposes of the instant
case, can be stated as under:
25.1. The complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly
examined, including the aspect whether the complainant has filed a false or
frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The court should also examine the
fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the
complainant, and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is
found to be false or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in
accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant and the
investigating officer is established, then action be taken against the
investigating officer in accordance with law.
25.2. The gravity of charge and the exact role of the accused must be
properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the
valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In
exceptional cases, the reasons could be recorded immediately after the
arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and
observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the
court.
25.3. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision
evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised
on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In
cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined2
(2020) 5 SCC 1
3
(2016) 1 SCC 152
5the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and
is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be
avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest.
Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for
the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not
make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-
conviction stage.
25.4. There is no justification for reading into Section 438 CrPC the
limitations mentioned in Section 437 CrPC. The plenitude of Section 438
must be given its full play. There is no requirement that the accused must
make out a “special case” for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory
bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred by Section 438
CrPC to a dead letter. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man
entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints
and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the
court may deem fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if
arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.
25.5. The proper course of action on an application for anticipatory bail ought
to be that after evaluating the averments and accusations available on the
record if the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then an interim bail be
granted and notice be issued to the Public Prosecutor. After hearing the
Public Prosecutor, the court may either reject the anticipatory bail application
or confirm the initial order of granting bail. The court would certainly be
entitled to impose conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Public
Prosecutor or the complainant would be at liberty to move the same court for
cancellation or modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail at any time if
liberty granted by the court is misused. The anticipatory bail granted by the
court should ordinarily be continued till the trial of the case.
25.9. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant
or refusal of the anticipatory bail because all circumstances and situations of
future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail.
In consonance with legislative intention, the grant or refusal of anticipatory
bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
25.10. We shall also reproduce para 112 of the judgment in Siddharam
Satlingappa case [(2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] , wherein the
Court delineated the following factors and parameters that need to be taken
into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the
accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the
accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(d) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or other
offences;
(e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people;
(g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the
accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact
role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated
with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court
6should consider with even greater care and caution, because over
implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has
to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to
free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(i) The court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the
element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of
grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused
is entitled to an order of bail.”
11. As seen from the record, as per the G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 21.05.2018,
private individuals can also remove the silt in large scale from the
tanks/reservoirs, and transport the silt, and use the same for their
private/commercial purposes with their own cost, without any burden on
government’s exchequer. Later, vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 14.10.2019,
amendment was effected to G.O.Ms.No.40 that any commercial use of silt
would be severely punishable, including the seizing of conveyance of vehicle
and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or ten times the cost of silt as per the current SSR,
whichever is more. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.2026, dated 06.10.2022,
further amendment was given to the main G.O.
12. The Accused No.3 is a contractor from a respectable Agricultural family
and he is supporter of YSR Congress Party. Initially an FIR was registered in
Cr.No.228/2021 against Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, T.Uday Kumar Reddy
and Sridhar Reddy under Sections 427 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 21 of the
MMDAR Act in V.Satram Police Station. The Accused No.2 is an agriculturist
having fixed abode and landed properties in his name.
7
13. On 24.12.2023 the investigating officer submitted a proposal to refer the
case as action dropped to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural. On
30.12.2023, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Nellore Rural issued
proceedings vide C.No.662/Ref-SDO.N(R)/2023, dated 30.12.2023, to drop
further action in the case. However, the investigating officer failed to serve
notice to the complainant therein and file a final report before the learned
Court concerned, seeking RCS proceedings.
14. On 25.01.2025, the Inspector of Police, V.Satram Police Station,
received a complaint, in respect of the same transaction, from
L.W.10/S.Ramesh, alleging illegal excavation and transportation of soil from
Survepalli Reservoir and from Kantepalli and Venkatachalam tanks. Based on
that, the Station House Officer, V Satram Police Station, submitted a proposal
to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural, to reopen the case. The
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural, issued proceedings vide
C.No.54/GL-SDO.N(R)/2025, dated 04.02.2025, and allowed further
investigation in this case.
15. On 07.06.2025, Petitioner/Accused No.1, in Cr.No.228/2021, registered
for the offences under Sections 427, 420, 120(B), 466, 468, 471 and 379 of
‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 21(4) of ‘the MMDR Act.,’ and Section 4 of the
Prevention of Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the PDPP Act‘), was
forwarded to the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nellore for judicial remand. However, the learned Magistrate refused to send
8
the Petitioner, who was accused No.1 in the above, to judicial remand as all
the offences were punishable below seven years, and released him on bail.
16. It has to be pointed out that immediately, on the same day, i.e., on
07.06.2025, the de-facto complainant herein by name Valluru Ramesh Naidu,
submitted a similar complaint which was registered as FIR in Cr.No.103/2025,
more or less, in respect of the same transaction, before the Station House
Officer, Venkatachala Satram Police Station, on the similar allegations.
17. Prima Facie, on a bare perusal of the averments of the FIR and the
progress of the investigation conducted so far, applicability and attraction of
Section 409 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in respect of the Petitioners is doubtful. Indeed, the
Petitioners have a fixed abode and are permanent residents of Indupuru
Village of Alluru Mandal. The possibility of fleeing away from the clutches of
law would not arise. Therefore, the Petitioners may not abscond or otherwise
misuse their liberty, if pre-arrest bail is granted to them. In that view of fact that
on earlier occasion in respect of the same set of transactions the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer gave permission to refer the case as civil nature.
There seems to be no justification to require the petitioners first to submit to
custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. A great
ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest, if the petitioners are
arrested. Further, the alleged incident occurred prior to 02.08.2023 i.e., more
than one and half years ago. The delay is not plausibly explained.
18. To maintain a balance in between the two factors namely no prejudice
should be caused to free, fair and full investigation and prevention of
9
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the petitioners, this Court
inclines to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners with the following stringent
conditions. In view of the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled
against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, and their alleged exact role
played in this case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3.
19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following
conditions:
i. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners/Accused Nos.2
and 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), with
two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the
arresting police officials.
ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall make themselves
available for investigation as and when required, and fully
cooperate with the Investigating Officer.
iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not cause any
threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.
iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before
the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on
10every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing
of the charge sheet.
v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not leave the
limits of the State without the express permission from the
Station House Officer concerned.
vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall surrender their
passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim
that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an
affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dated: 25.07.2025
VTS