[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kottevalla Jayaprakash Reddy Jaya … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2025
APHC010088652025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1905/2025
Between:
1.KOTTEVALLA JAYAPRAKASH REDDY @ JAYA @ REDDY, S/O.
MUNIRATHNAM, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O VINAYAKA TEMPLE,
GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT
2.THOTI MANJUNADH @ MANJU, S/O MUNICHOWDAPPA, AGED 37
YRS, R/O MAREDUPALLE VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH,
GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI.
2.V SATHEESH, S/O. SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 31, R/O.D.NO.4-
20, SETIN THANGAL, KURCHIVEDU, NARASINGARAYANIPETTA,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
THE COURT ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN
CRL.P.NO.1905 OF 2025.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
2
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2.P SAI SURYA TEJA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) [Sections
437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C‘)]
seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail in S.C.No.110
of 2016 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Court for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor, which arose out of
Crime No.130/2015 of I Town Police Station, Chittoor.
2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chittoor/Investigating Officer after
completion of investigation filed charge sheet against Petitioners and twenty
one others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302,
307, 326, 120-B, 109 read with 149, 212, 216 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’), Sections 25(1A), 25(1AAA), 25(1B)(a),
25(1B)(c), 27(3) and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The
Petitioners were arrested by the Investigating Officer on 24.11.2015. Since
then, they have been in the judicial custody.
3. Provenance of the case of the prosecution as emanated from the
averments of the charge sheet is as follows:
On 17.11.2015 V. Satish Kumar Naidu gave a statement to the police in
CMC Hospital, Vellore. Basing on the statement, a case was registered in
3Crime No.130/2015 of Chittoor I Town Police Station against accused for the
offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 120-B, 301 r/w 511 r/w 34 of ‘the
I.P.C.,’ and Sec.25(1B)(a) and 27 of ‘the Act’. It is stated in the report that on
17.11.2015 V. Satish Kumar Naidu went to Municipal Corporation Office,
Chittoor to meet Katari Mohan, who was the husband of Mayor of Chittoor
Municipal Corporation, to discuss about his father’s transfer. When he is in the
chambers of the Mayor at about 11:45 a.m., the accused No.1 to 4 entered into
the Chambers of Mayor. Out of four of the above accused, two persons were
in Burkhas. The accused No.1 had removed his Burkha and shot the Mayor on
her head with a revolver. Accused No.3 hacked Katari Mohan with a knife on
his neck. When the de-facto complainant tried to stop accused No.4, he
hacked him on his back. When Katari Mohan had run away into the
conference Hall which is attached to the Mayor’s chamber, all the accused
chased him and hacked him with knives. Thereafter the persons who were
there viz., Murali, Chinna, Kishore, Vijay Kumar and others shifted the Mayor
Anuradha, Katari Mohan and the de-facto complainant to hospital, where the
doctors declared that the Mayor was brought dead. Thereafter, Katari Mohan,
who received serious injuries, and the de-facto complainant were shifted to
CMC Hospital for better treatment.
After registration of FIR, police took up investigation. On completion of
investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners and 21
others.
4
4. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
submits that the petitioners are innocent, they did not commit any offence,
much less the alleged offences; they were falsely implicated in this case by
the de-facto complainant; there was a delay of eight hours in lodging the
report though the incident occurred in the heart of Chittoor City and the Police
Station is within one kilometre away from the scene of offence; as it is a
sensational case in Chittoor District, although Police were aware about the
incident immediately within minutes and number of persons were available,
the FIR was registered not immediately; there were number of instances
which show that the FIR was brought into existence after due deliberations
and consultations for implicating the Petitioners as Accused in the case.
5. It is further submitted that as per the allegations of the charge sheet, the
Petitioners along with another after participating in the alleged attack had
gone to the Police Station and surrendered before the Police within one hour
after the incident seeking protection from the followers of the deceased.
However, strangely the Police on the same day at about 08:00 p.m., allowed
the Petitioners to go to their houses although the FIR was lodged by
attributing specific overt acts against them. Therefore, the version of the
Investigating Officer is highly suspicious, almost all the witnesses are highly
interested, and their version is doubtful.
6. It is further submitted that out of twenty-three Accused, except the
Petitioners, all the other Accused including Accused Nos.1 and 2 were granted
bail. The Deceased No.2/Katari Mohan had several enemies and he himself
5
was Accused in several criminal cases including the offence punishable under
Section 302 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The Petitioners got fixed place of abode, and they
are ready to furnish surety for their future appearances and the Petitioners are
ready to abide by any condition which this Court may deem it fit to impose.
The de-facto complainant is stranger to the Petitioners, hence, the question of
mentioning the name of the Petitioners in the FIR does not arise.
7. It is further submitted that this Court dismissed the bail applications in
Crl.P.No.11124 of 2017, Crl.P.No.5494 of 2022 and Crl.P.No.2780 of 2024 for
grant of bail. Later the Petitioners along with other Accused preferred SLP
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the same was also dismissed vide
order dated 19.01.2024. It is furthermore submitted that a learned Judge of
this Court in Crl.P.No.8457 of 2024 dated 07.02.2025 granted bail to Accused
No.1. The Petitioners are also standing on the same footing. The specific
overt acts attributed to the Petitioners are less graver than Accused No.1. The
reasons given by this Court for granting bail to Accused No.1 are squarely
applicable to the case of the Petitioners also.
8. It is furthermore submitted that this Court while dismissing
Crl.P.No.2032 of 2020 by order dated 16.07.2020 directed the Trial Court to
complete the trial within a period of three months and even thereafter on
numerous occasions, this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time
directed the Trial Court to complete the trial expeditiously. However, till now
the trial is not completed for one reason or other. The last bail application filed
by the Petitioner No.2 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
6
12.07.2024. Even after eight months period lapsed, there is no progress in the
trial.
9. It is further submitted that, except for the examination of the
Investigating Officer (L.W.130), the evidence of all other prosecution
witnesses has been duly completed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners
further submits that, notwithstanding the absence of any material to support
such an allegation, it is routinely contended particularly at the instance of the
Counsel for the de-facto complainant and other interested parties harbouring
animosity towards the Petitioners that the Petitioners are responsible for
protracting the trial proceedings. However, a perusal of the record, it would
reveal that, subsequent to the year 2020, there has been no order of stay
operating in the matter, nor there is any instance on record wherein the
Petitioners can be said to have occasioned delay in the process of the trial.
Learned Counsel for Petitioners further submits that such allegations are
being strategically advanced to prejudice their legitimate right to seek bail. The
Petitioners have undergone incarceration for a period exceeding nine years in
connection with the present case, and such prolonged detention, in the
absence of any demonstrable delay attributable to them, has resulted in
severe hardship and prejudice to their rights, and urged to allow the criminal
Petition on whatever conditions this Court deems fit.
10. Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued
that the Petitioners hacked P.W.1 (victim/de-facto complainant) with an
intention to kill him when P.W.1 tried to rescue the Deceased No.2. The
7
Petitioners along with other Accused indiscriminately hacked with sickles and
firearms resulting in the death of two persons in broad day light in the office
chambers of Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Chittoor. Several applications
have been filed at the behest of the Petitioners and other Accused one after
the other to prolong the trial. Had the Petitioners and other Accused
cooperated with the learned Trial Judge in completion of the case, it would not
have taken nine long years for disposal of a Sessions Case. Therefore, the
Petitioners and other Accused are to be blamed for the delay in conducting the
trial.
11. When G.Rajaram, Special Public Prosecutor was appointed by the then
Government on 25.10.2014 to conduct trial in this case, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor appeared for more than one year, several miscellaneous
petitions were filed by the Accused. During the trial several times the Accused
absconded. The learned Trial Court was constrained to issue warrants for their
appearance. The Petitioners and other Accused have played all the tricks to
get the case adjourned from time to time for one reasons or other including
making allegations against the presiding officer or the public prosecutors and
changing the advocates.
12. The Petitioners filed a petition in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.5478 of 2018 before the
Sessions Court, Chittoor to delay the trial proceedings making bald allegations
against the presiding officer of the Trial Court and later not pursued the petition.
Later the same Counsel for the present Petitioners filed Transfer Petition in
C.F.No.521/2022 in the name of another accused stating that the Trial Court
8
had no jurisdiction, the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor returned the petition
with detailed order about the tactics played by the accused to delay the
proceedings.
13. On 11.04.2022, the date of Commencement of the schedule, the 4th
accused/Petitioner No.2 had dubiously admitted in Hospital and filed petition
under section 273 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ not to proceed with the trial. From the date
of committal to this date, the accused have been causing delay in the trial and
filed several petitions before the Trial Court and protracting trial. The Accused
No.1 who was enlarged on bail in the month of February 2025 filed a transfer
petition, after his release, making bald allegation against the presiding officer
and filed petitions to stall the proceedings before the Trial Court. The Accused
No.23 threatened two police officers who were assisted in Investigation and
cited as witnesses, consequently, two crimes were registered against Accused
No.23 in Two Town Police Station in Crime No.78 of 2019 and Crime No.79 of
2019 and charge sheets were filed and the same was numbered as
C.C No.1489 of 2019 and C.C No.1490 of 2019 and they are coming up for
appearance of the accused. It is therefore prayed that unless and until this
Court monitors the case by dismissing the present bail application by issuing
specific directions to the Trial Court, the case will not be completed.
14. Eventually, it is argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is
completed, the case is posted for 313 examinations of the accused and urged
to dismiss the Criminal Petition by issuing specific directions to the learned
Trial Court to complete the trial.
9
15. Mr. P.Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 filed a
memo stating that the Petitioners and other Accused played several delayed
tactics including filing of a petition in C.F.R.No.359/2018 on the date of
schedule stating that he had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in
W.P.No.25586/2018 challenging the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor
and to stall the proceedings. The said petition was dismissed on the same day.
On 27.11.2018, when the learned Trial Court called for fixing the date of the
schedule, the Petitioners herein instructed their Counsel to withdraw their
memo of appearance and their Counsel withdrew his appearance from the
case just on the day of fixing the schedule, causing further delay in fixing the
schedule. The present Petitioners along with other accused filed
Tr.Crl.M.P.No.5478 of 2018 before the District and Sessions Court, Chittoor to
delay the trial proceeding making bald allegations against the Presiding Officer
of the Trial Court and later not pursued the petition. Further, the learned
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 raised similar contentions of the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor.
16. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
17. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?”
18. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are
entitled for release on bail on the principle of parity as the main Accused No.1
was enlarged on bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In this regard, it
10
is relevant to comprehend the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, relied on by
the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v.
Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana1, wherein at paragraph Nos.25 and 26 it is
held as under regarding the applicability of the principle of parity:
“25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court
granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and
innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity
of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High
Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider
the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC
p. 515, para 17)
“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that
the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of
the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the
second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It
can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and,
therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC
OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as
a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has
been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The
High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to
pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to
travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.”
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which
the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated
21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine
Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC
OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta
Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela
(A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha
Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as
the High Court recorded) that he was “assigned similar role of armed with stick
(sic)”. Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was
armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15)
and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail.
The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is
meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the
accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was
armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for
the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the
aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to
the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has
proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above,
which again cannot pass muster under the law.”
1
(2021) 6 SCC 230
11
19. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on a decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. The Registrar General
Jharkhand High Court2, wherein at paragraph No.13 it is held as under:
“13. Further, we expect that in order to maintain consistency in the views
taken by the Court, the learned judge, who will hear the subsequent
applications filed for bail, may give due weightage to the views taken by the
earlier judge, who had dealt with the bail applications arising out of the same
FIR.”
20. However, in the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Singh
v. State of U.P.3, relied on by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, it
is held that parity cannot be drawn while considering the bail application of co-
accused.
21. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.2, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh4, set aside the order of granting bail by the High Court and directed the
accused therein be arrested forthwith, by observing that it is the duty of the
Court to record reasons and to take note of events subsequent to the incident,
when granting bail after once it was refused.
22. This Court in vide order dated 07.02.2025 in Crl.P.No.8457/2024 granted
bail to the Accused No.1 with certain conditions that he should not enter
Chittoor Town except on the days his presence is required before the learned
2
Writ Petition(Criminal) No.55 of 2025
3
2023 SCC OnLine All 3199
4
(2002) 3 SCC 598
12
Trial Court; his whereabouts shall be informed to the Superintendent of Police,
Chittoor and Tirupati; and he shall not threaten or influence the witnesses.
23. Indeed, as per Ramesh Bhavan Rathod, while applying the principle of
parity, this Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner. This
Court has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. Parity,
while granting bail, must focus upon the role of the accused. In deciding the
aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to
the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. This Court cannot
proceed on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment. Merits or demerits
of the facts of the case or evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution cannot
be looked into while hearing the application for enlarging the Petitioners on
bail.
24. Undeniably now the trial has been going on for the past nine and half
years. In fact, bail petition filed under Sections 437 and 439 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’
(Sections 480 & 483 of ‘the BNSS’) is not applicable at this juncture inasmuch
as those Sections would only enable the Petitioner when they were on bail
during the pendency of the investigation. The appropriate Section of law would
be Section 309 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (Section 346 of ‘the BNSS’). Hence, the length
of the period of detention in judicial custody is absolutely immaterial.
25. The allegations of the prosecution against the Accused No.1 are that he
shot the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation on her head with a revolver,
whereas the Petitioners hacked Katari Mohan, husband of the Mayor, with
sickles indiscriminately. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 hacked the de-facto
13
complainant with a sickle. All the accused including the Petitioners chased
Katari Mohan, when he had gone into the conference hall of the Mayor’s
Office, and hacked him with sickles. Hence the principle of parity cannot be
drawn in favour of the Petitioners and the decision in Shekhar Prasad Mahto
is of no help to the Counsel for the Petitioners.
26. It has to be pointed out that the Petitioners and other Accused have
played all possible dodgy and guileful tactics in prolonging the trial for one
reason or the other. To substantiate that there are umpteen number of
instances viz., several applications were filed by the Petitioners and other
Accused one after another to prolong the trial; every stage of the trial they had
not cooperated with the learned Trial Court for smooth conduction of the trial,
that is the reason why nine long years have taken, but the sessions case has
not reached to its logical conclusion. At last, the Trial is at the stage of
examination of the accused under Section 313 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’; Petitioners and
other Accused have filed several applications seeking for transfer of sessions
case from the present Trial Court by making bald allegations against the
presiding the officer and also against the Special Public Prosecutor. Indeed,
petitions for transfer of the case were also filed on the ground that the Trial
Court has no jurisdiction before the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
27. As seen from the record, Petitioner No.2 filed an application under
Section 273 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to postpone the trial, when schedule was issued
after committal of the case to the learned Trial Court. The accused and the
Petitioners made several attempts either to cause delay in the process of trial
14
or stall the process of trial. The Accused No.1 who was enlarged on bail by
this Court in the month of February 2025 even filed a transfer petition after his
release making bald allegations against the presiding officer of the Trial Court.
It is also alleged by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the Accused
No.23 threatened two police officers who had assisted the investigation.
Therefore, two cases were registered against them in two police stations and
charge sheets were also filed against them vide C.C.No.1489/2019 and
C.C.No.1490 of 2019.
28. Further, as seen from the record, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.25586 of
2018 was also filed by the accused challenging the appointment of Special
Public Prosecutor and tried to stall the proceedings before the learned Trial
Court. The Petitioners after the learned Trial Court fixed the schedule,
instructed their Counsel to withdraw their memo of appearance and their
Counsel had withdrawn their appearance from the case just to cause delay in
fixing the schedule.
29. Even as per the averments of the present petition, the Petitioners bail
application filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was dismissed on
19.01.2024. Mere fact that the Accused No.1 was granted bail by this Court is
not a ground to enlarge the Petitioners on bail on the principle of parity. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.05.2025 in Miscellaneous
Application No.943 of 2025 Crl.A.No.1250 of 2022 extended the time for
completing the trial and pronouncing the judgment within another six months,
if possible, even earlier also. There is no change of circumstances from the
15
date of dismissal of the earlier bail application filed by the Petitioner No.2 from
the date of filing of the present application. The learned Trial Court completed
the evidence of witnesses of the prosecution and posted the case for
examination of the Petitioners and other Accused under Section 313 of ‘the
Cr.P.C.,’ (Section 351 of ‘the BNSS’).
30. Undoubtedly, if the Petitioners were enlarged on bail at this juncture,
that is at the fag end of the trial, there would be turmoil and unrest to the
witnesses of the prosecution and it is not safe at this boiling point to enlarge
them on bail as they had allegedly involved in brutally murdering the Mayor,
who is the first citizen of the city of Chittoor and her husband, in the broad day
light in a Government Office in the heart of the city of Chittoor. For the time
being, it is safe and requirement of the society to keep the Petitioners in
judicial custody till the final judgment of the Trial Court is pronounced, as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court extended time for completion of trial even before six
months.
31. Further, if the Petitioners are enlarged on bail at the fag end of the trial,
their release would wreak havoc in the society, because they were the persons
who were allegedly hired by Accused No.1 to commit the brutal double murder
in broad day light in the heart of city, that too in Government Office in district
headquarters. Furthermore, had the Petitioners and other Accused cooperated
with the learned Trial Judge, the trial would not have taken nine long years,
and it would have been completed, and the judgment would have been
pronounced long back. It is safe and expedient of the hour to keep the
16
Petitioners in judicial custody and the trial be completed within the stipulated
time as granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and appropriate judgment be
passed by the learned Trial Court. In this connection, no further orders are
required to be passed by this Court for completion of the trial by the learned
Sessions Judge.
32. For the above reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for the present.
33. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein above were
only confined to the disposal of bail application and in no way be construed to
have an expression on the merits of the case.
________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 04.07.2025
VTS
[ad_2]
Source link