Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Muppa Suresh Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 2025
1
APHC010275592025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5683/2025
Between:
1. MUPPA SURESH BABU, S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS, R/O. MEENAKSHI TRIDENT TOWERS A BLOCK, 903,
GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ONGOLE TALUK POLICE
STATION ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT REP.BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI
2. MUPPAVARAPU SUCHITHRA, W/O. LATE MUPPARAPU VEERAIAH
CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. AMMANABROLU
VILLAGE, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASHAM DIST.
RESPONDENTNT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER
DATED 08.07.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.5683 OF 2025.
…RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum
Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to release the Petitioner/A-7
Petitioner/A on bail
in the event of his arrest in FIR No.249/2025, Dt.22
Dt.22- 04-2025
2025 on the file of the
Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam
District, AP and passIA NO: 1 OF 2025
2Petition under Section 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 may be pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioner to come
on record as respondent No.2 in the above case to/and assist the prosecution
of Public Prosecutor in CrI.P.No.5683 of 2025 and passCounsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), is filed on behalf of the
petitioner/A.7 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.249/2025
of Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioner / A.7 and others for
the offence punishable under Sections 331(5), 103(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).
3. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 22.04.2025 at 7:30 P.M., the
deceased, along with Narayana Rao and Niranjan, was at the office reviewing
liquor shop accounts when four unidentified individuals entered carrying a bag.
When the de facto complainant questioned them, they immediately pulled out
knives and pushed him aside and attacked the deceased with knives and
hacked him indiscriminately. When the complainant tried to stop the accused,
the accused put the knife to his throat and threatened to kill him. After
confirming that Veeraiah (the deceased) had died, the accused fled the scene
in their vehicles toward Padma Towers. Ashok, the computer operator who
witnessed the incident, rushed to the deceased and, after the accused left,
called the driver. The deceased was then shifted to Venkata Ramana Nursing
3
Home, Ongole, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. Based
on the complaint, the present crime was registered against four unknown
persons. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested A-1, A-2,
A-4, A-5, A-10, and A-11 at 12:00 P.M. on 14.05.2025, and A-6, A-8, and A-9
at 4:00 P.M. the same day. All were produced before the Jurisdictional
Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2025. The remand
report revealed that A-1, A-6, A-7, and A-8 bore a grudge against the
deceased, and that A-1 had met A-6 and A-7 in Ammanbrolu Village to plan
the murder.
4. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as A-7, though no name is
assigned to A-7 in the remand report. There is no evidence of his involvement,
and the allegation appears politically motivated. He was not present at the
scene, has no criminal antecedents, and learned of his alleged role only
through media reports. All material witnesses have been examined, and he
undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the trial
court.
5. Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Sri G.
Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the
grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is not
completed.
6. On behalf of the 2nd Respondent / De facto complainant, Sri K.S. Murthy,
learned senior counsel submitted arguments and opposed the grant of bail to
the petitioner.
7. I have heard learned counsel on either side. Learned counsel on either
side reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the
petition and the report.
4
8. In Mahipal V. Rajesh1The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is necessary
for the Court, while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based
on the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused has committed the crime.
9. In Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2,
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that;
“Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be
granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that
the accused would not misuse his liberty”.
10. In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab3, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The question whether to grant bail or not
depends for its answers upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect
of which must enter into the judicial verdict”.
11. In Jai Prakash Singh V. The State of Bihar & Another4, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
18. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to
be satisfied, and further, while granting such relief, the Court must record the
reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has
falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.
20. The High Court erred in not considering the case in correct perspective and
allowed the said applications on the grounds that in the FIR some old disputes
had been referred to and the accused had fair antecedents……….
12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case
has been foisted against the petitioner, who has no connection whatsoever
with the alleged offence. It is contended that, even as per the complaint and
the remand report, the petitioner was not present at the scene of the incident,
and has been falsely implicated by the police under the influence of local
political pressure. The remand report discloses that A.1, A.6, A.7, and A.8
1
(2020) 2 SCC 118
2
2015 SAR (Criminal) 156
3
(1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565
4
2012 0 AIR(SC) 1676
5
bore a grudge and had developed enmity against the deceased. In support of
its case, the prosecution has placed reliance on statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly those of LW.7, LW.8, LW.10, LW.11, LW.16,
and LW.26 to LW.30, to demonstrate the existence of political and personal
differences between the petitioner and the deceased.
13. It is settled law that statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. are to be
looked into by the Court in deciding the question of grant of bail, in Indresh
Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 5 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that “statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., may not be
admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case
against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence”.
Similarly, in Salim Khan v. Sanjai Singh6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the Court is duty-bound to consider all the statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., examine the gravity of the offence and also examine the
question of possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and
possibility of getting the attendance of the accused during trial and then would
be entitled to grant bail to an accused. Thus, the material placed on record
prima facie establishes the existence of ongoing political/personal differences
between the petitioner and the deceased.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in
P.Krishna Mohan Reddy V. The State of Andhra Pradesh7, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
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
5
2022 SCC OnLine SC 2411
6
(2002) 9 SCC 670
7
MANU/SC/0737/2025
6
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.
15. In Ramveer Upadhyay and Ors. V. State of U.P. and Ors. 8 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
30. The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of
political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal
proceedings, as observed by Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan Paswan v.
State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0206/1986. It is a well-established
proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and
based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of
mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.
Though the view of Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) was
the minority view, there was no difference of opinion with regard to this
finding. To quote Krishna Iyer, J., in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh
MANU/SC/0433/1979, “if the use of power is of fulfilment of a legitimate
object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal.”
16. The prosecution has placed reliance on the alleged confessional
statement said to have been given by A.1. According to the prosecution, after
the commission of the offence, while fleeing the scene, A.3 and A.4 made
separate WhatsApp calls to A.1 and informed him about the execution of the
murder. In turn, A.1 is said to have made a WhatsApp call to A.6, conveyed
the same information, and instructed A.6 to communicate it further to A.7 and
A.8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy (supra), in support of
the contention that a confessional statement made by a co-accused cannot be
relied upon at the stage of considering anticipatory or regular bail. Given the
8
MANU/SC/0524/2022
7
legal position laid down in the said decision, this Court is not inclined to place
significant reliance on the alleged confessional statement of A.1.
17. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the Call Detail Records
(CDRs) of A.1 and A.7, which indicate that approximately 30 calls were
exchanged between them during the period from 13.07.2024 to 06.02.2025. In
addition, the prosecution has submitted certain documents to establish that
the petitioner was a Director of Vaidik Infra Projects Private Limited, and that
A.7’s associate, one Kadapa Gowtham, effected two payments of ₹50,000/-
and ₹49,000/- respectively to A.1 on 24.01.2025.
18. The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is imperative at this stage of the investigation. It
is submitted that such interrogation is necessary not merely to confront the
petitioner with the financial records already collected by the investigating
agency, but more importantly, to ascertain the nature, source, and purpose of
the monetary transactions allegedly linked to the commission of the offence.
19. The prosecution refers specifically to the payments of ₹50,000/- and
₹49,000/- purportedly made by Kadapa Gowtham, an alleged associate of A.7,
to A.1, and contends that the petitioner’s role–as the Director of Vaidik Infra
Projects Private Limited–needs to be thoroughly examined to determine
whether these payments were part of a legitimate commercial transaction or
had any nexus with the offence in question.
20. In addition, the learned Public Prosecutor emphasizes the importance
of verifying the contents, context, and frequency of the WhatsApp
communications allegedly exchanged between the petitioner and the co-
accused persons, which the prosecution believes may throw light on the
petitioner’s involvement, if any, in the broader conspiracy. It is argued that
such digital evidence, including chat histories, call logs, and metadata, may
not be accessible or verifiable without custodial interrogation, particularly if the
petitioner has devices or accounts that have not yet been recovered or
8
subjected to forensic analysis. Therefore, the prosecution maintains that
denial of custodial interrogation at this juncture may hamper the investigation
and prevent the uncovering of crucial evidence relevant to establishing the
extent and nature of the petitioner’s alleged involvement.
21. Regarding the prosecution’s case, the investigation remains incomplete.
The anticipatory bail for the petitioner may adversely impact the ongoing
investigation. There is a possibility of threats to the witnesses, and a prima
facie case involving the petitioner in a severe case exists. The nature of the
accusations is grave. The investigation agency has not been able to
interrogate the Accused/Petitioner.
22. In State represented by the C.B.I. V. Anil Sharma9, the Hon’ble Apex
Court had observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation
orientated than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case like
this interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting
useful informations.
23. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the police are not able
to capture the petitioner even after a lapse of considerable time. It is also not
the petitioner’s case that he cooperated with the investigation. The
investigation in this case has not been completed. The release of the
petitioner may adversely affect the investigation process. There is every
possibility of threatening the witnesses as apprehended by the prosecution.
To bring out all material information relating to the offence, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required.
24. While this Court is conscious of the fundamental importance of an
individual’s liberty, it must also, when considering an anticipatory bail
application, take into account the seriousness of the accusations and the
relevant facts bearing on the case. This is especially so where the allegations
are not prima facie false, frivolous, or vexatious, but are supported by
9
1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 268
9
adequate material on record that enables the Court to arrive at a prima facie
conclusion regarding the involvement of the accused.
25. Considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, as well as
the gravity of the offence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is
required in this case for a proper and just investigation of this case. It is the settled
principle of law that the power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be
sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances, and thus, no such
circumstances have been made out in this case.
26. After evaluating the facts of the case, the gravity of the allegations, the
materials gathered, and the materials to be collected in the course of the
investigation, it is not desirable to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
27. As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Nothing stated above
shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case,
and the observations made in the present case are only for adjudicating the
present bail application.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 15.07.2025
SAK
10
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5683 of 2025
Date: 15.07.2025
SAK