Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Metta Vishnu Vardhan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 July, 2025
APHC010313292025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6412/2025
Between:
METTA VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY, S/O.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. THALLAPUDI
VILLAGE, MUTHUKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused
No.A2 on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.167/2025 on the file of
Muthukur Police Station, dated 07.06.2025 under Sections 409, 417, 465,
467, 471, 120(b), 109, 506(2), 386 r/w 34 I PC and pass such other or further
orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2The Court made the following ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner for
granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.167 of 2025 of
Muttukur Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471, 120(b),
109, 506(2), 386 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC‘).
2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that the de-facto complainant is the
owner of F.S. transport. Accused No.1, who was elected as Member of
Legislative Assembly was involved in all the illegal activities by using his
designation. With strong support of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 to 9
planned to cheat the container transporters with an intention to wrongful gain
and started three associations in the month of August, 2021 and maintained
offices in the vacant place of Nadavala Sekhar. They increased transport
charges with their own interest and issued orders to the owners of the
containers. In continuation of this practice, on 11.04.2022, they issued orders
to pay the increased charges on the name of KCPT transport association.
Accused Nos.2 to 9 cheated and collected huge amount from the owners and
issued fake bills and extorted amount from other transport owners. While the
drivers refused to pay the charges, the accused threatened them with dire
consequences. They started illegal business and collapsed the system with an
intention to gain huge money and degrade the honor of Krishnapatnam port.
Hence, the case was registered.
3
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely
implicated in this case. The petitioner would abide by any condition to be
imposed by this court.
5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the petitioner has indulged
in the offence highhandedly, there is prima-facie case is made out against the
petitioner; some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation
is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available
for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged
to dismiss the bail petition.
6. As seen from the record, it appears that there are disputes in between
two associations, one is, Krishnapatnam Transport Association and the other
is, Krishnapatnam Container Transport Owners Association. The latter one
was old. The Krishnapatnam Transport Association, members three in
number, were induced into Krishnapatnam Container Transport Owners
Association. The alleged transactions occurred in between 2021-2023. Even
as per the case of the prosecution, it is the incident originated in the year
2021. F.I.R was lodged on 07.06.2025. The main accused/Accused No.1 was
enlarged on regular bail by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of
4
First Class, Nellore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.927 of 2025 in
Crime No.167 of 2025 of Muthukuru Police Station on 10.07.2025.
7. The object of the above mentioned two Associations is to help the
members in getting maximum rates to their services as per clause 7 (3) of the
Memorandum of Association. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the
petitioner and other accused created their own check post and there was no
check post as per the directions of the Government or Transport Authorities.
8. The allegation is that during the year 2021, when the trailers sent for
transporting of the material from Krishnapatnam port to various places, they
used to get the freight charges transferred from the companies to the account
of Krishnapatnam logistics at ICICI Bank from thereafter excluding the
commission they used to pay the freight charges to the owners of the trailers
by excluding their commission by showing the fake bills in such a way, the
petitioner and other accused earned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the
owners of the trailers who sent their trailers through his transport. However,
the de-facto complainant asked the bills to show them to the owners, the
accused and others threatened him with dire consequences and based on the
said report, a case in crime No.167 of 2025 was lodged for the offences
punishable under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471, 120(b), 109, 506(2), 386
r/w 34 of ‘the IPC‘. The petitioner is even as per the averments of the report
lodged by the de-facto complainant, Mandal convener of YSRCP party
Muthukur Mandal. He is a political party leader.
5
9. As observed, though the alleged incident occurred about more than two
years, the de-facto complainant or any person, who is aggrieved by the deeds,
or rather misdeeds of the petitioner or any accused, ought to have reported
the same to the police at relevant point of time. The prime allegation is that the
petitioner and other accused extorted freight charges from the lorry owners
and misappropriated them. There is delay of more than two years in lodging
the F.I.R. The reason assigned is that, at that time the petitioner and other
accused were in politically powerful position, therefore, the de-facto
complainant and the other victims could not venture to lodge report with the
police.
10. 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, 45, 46, 47, 50, 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.
45. However, the aforesaid observations cannot be singled out and
construed devoid of its context. While it is permissible for the courts to
examine the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for the
purpose of ascertaining whether a prima-facie case has been made out1
2025 SCC Online SC 1157
6against the accused and the nature or gravity of the allegations, the same
applies only insofar as such police statements are of witnesses and not
accused persons.
46. Both Indresh Kumar (supra) and Salim Khan (supra) have held
that in deciding the question of grant of bail, it is the statements of witness
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhere has
this Court held that even the police statements of the accused person
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. must also be looked into at the stage of
grant of anticipatory or regular bail.
47. This is because a statement of an accused under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C stands on a different footing from a police statement of any ordinary
witness. Statements of an accused person under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. by virtue of ordinarily being in the form of either an admission or a
confession cannot be looked into qua another co-accused, as to say
otherwise would be to ignore the substantive provisions of Section(s) 17,
21, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and the well settled cannons of law of
evidence. However, the aforesaid does not apply, where the statement of
an accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is exculpatory in nature, which
we shall discuss later.
50. Even where the police statement of an accused person under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is neither an admission nor a confession, i.e., it is
exculpatory in nature and not inculpatory, such statements can be looked
into by the courts only for the limited purpose of culling out the stance of the
accused person qua the allegations. An exculpatory police statement of an
accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C which at the same time
implicates another co- accused, cannot be relied upon, merely because
such statement is not hit by the safeguards and rigours that apply in
respect of inculpatory statements in the form of an admissions or
confessions under the Evidence Act. The fundamental cannon of criminal
jurisprudence is that a statement of one accused person cannot be used
against another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid
general principle is inculpatory confessions, where the accused person in
his confessional statement not only admits his own guilt but also implicates
another co-accused. The rationale behind this limited exception as
explained in Bhuboni Sahu (supra), is that an admission by an accused
person of his own guilt affords some sort of credibility or sanction in support
of the truth of his confession against others as-well as himself. An
exculpatory statement is an affront to the aforesaid principle. Thus, an
exculpatory statement of an accused person under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. can only be looked into for the limited purpose of either culling out
the stance of the accused person qua the allegations or for contradicting
the accused, if the accused chooses to be examined as a witness in terms
of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. However, such exculpatory statement insofar
as it implicates another co-accused person can in no manner be relied
upon by the courts as against such co-accused as such statements by their
nature cannot be tested by cross-examination if such accused person
declines to be a witness in the trial in terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C.,
and because such exculpatory statement has no credibility.
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.
7
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
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.”
11. Having seen the entire material on record, Accused No.3 gave an
incriminating statement not only against him but also against the present
petitioner who is shown as Accused No.3. Albeit political bias or malafides by
itself would not suffice to grant anticipatory bail by overlooking other prima
facie material on record, having seen the entire material on record, there is a
delay of more than two and half years in approaching the police for registration
of a crime. Indeed, there is a dispute in between two societies. They had
alternative better remedy under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies
Registration Act, 2001. After grievance, the contention of the complainant is
expected though he could not venture to lodge a report with the police, he
could have approached a competent Principal District Judge who is the
designating Court for sorting out the issues of societies under Section 23 of
the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Even as per the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy supra,
political bias is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of
anticipatory bail. On a careful perusal of the entire case dairy, as of now,
except the confession of co-accused/Accused No.3, there is no substantial
material available, rather established by the investigating officer against the
petitioner/Accused No.2.
8
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy supra, held that a
confessing statement of co-accused per se inadmissible and no relevance
whatsoever can be placed on such statement at the stage of bail or through
bail inasmuch as such confession statements are rendered by virtue of
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’). The provision
of Section 30 of ‘the Act’ would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed
on such a statement as a cause of action to implicate another co-accused.
Further, more importantly, it is to be pointed out that the petitioner is not
partner in Krishnapatnam Logistics as seen from the partnership deed dated
26.07.2024, of course, Krishnapatnam Logistics is with four partners.
13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged
role placed by the petitioner, the nature of allegations levelled against him, this
Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, however, with
following stringent conditions:
a) In the event of arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be
enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two sureties each for
the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police
officials;
b) The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation
as and when required;
c) The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or
promise to the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer
concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00
a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.
9
e) The petitioner shall not leave the district limits without the
express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
f) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the
investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport,
he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating
Officer.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 14.07.2025
KAS