Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Nellore Siva Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6547/2025
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the
petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 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 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short „the IPC‟).
2. Facts, in brief, of the case of the prosecution 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
abusing his official position. 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
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
system with an intention to gain huge money and degrade the honor of
Krishnapatnam port. Hence, the case was registered.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were
falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners would abide by any condition to
be imposed by this court. He further submitted that petitioner No.1/Accused
No.6 is not partner of the firm and he is not a member of any association or
society his daughter is a major and partner of the firm. Petitioner
No.2/Accused No.7 is also not a member with effect from 26.09.2022 as he
quit the firm. This Court was pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to Accused No.2
on the ground that he is also not the member of the partnership firm. There is
a delay of more than two and half years in lodging the report. A dispute in
between the de-facto complainant and the accused is civil in nature. It has to
be sorted out before the competent civil court designated under the Societies
Act, 1860 (for short „the Act‟). The dispute is not pertaining to public sector
undertaking, but it is relating to a private sector undertaking, where the
allegation is that only lesser amounts were paid, it was not the case of the de-
facto complainant that no amounts at all were paid.
5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the petitioners have
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
indulged in the offence highhandedly, there is prima-facie case is made out
against the petitioners; some more material witnesses have to be examined;
investigation is not completed; if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they
would not be available for the investigation and they would escape from the
clutches of law; and that transactions worth of cores of rupees transpired in
among the accused. The accused have illegally collected cores of rupees and
unlawfully misappropriated them. There is sufficient material available against
the petitioner No.1 and 2/Accused Nos.6 and 7 about their involvement in this
case, handwritten bill books were illegally raised and utilized unauthorizedly
for wrongful gain. The investigation is still at nascent stage. By producing the
entire CD the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the
petitioner No.1/Accused No.6 functioned as President of Krishnapatnam
Transport Corporation at the relevant point of time and also later he functioned
as treasurer and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
7. A memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners appending
with acknowledgment of registration of forum. It was issued on 26.09.2022 by
the Registrar of firms. As per Forum-A the daughter of the petitioner
No.1/Accused No.6 joined the firm on 25.08.2022. The petitioner
No.1/Accused No.6 retired from the firm. The petitioner No.1/Accused No.6
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
has been suffering from severe heart elements as per the discharge summary
submitted by him issued by Vijaya Medical & Educational Trust. The petitioner
No.1/Accused No.6 underwent surgery and four stents were inserted to his
heart arteries.
8. Indeed, as seen from the record produced by the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor in the reconstitution of partnership deed dated 25.08.2022,
the daughter and son of the petitioner No.1/A-6, by name N. Shivajyothi and
N. Mokshagna were included in the partnership firm by name M/s.
Krishnapatnam Logistics.
9. Further, as per the record, petitioner No.2/Accused No.7 ceased to be a
member of the firm with effect from 26.09.2022. It also appears that there are
disputes between two associations namely, the Krishnapatnam Transport
Association and the Krishnapatnam Container Transport Owners Association,
the latter being the older of the two. Three members of the Krishnapatnam
Transport Association were allegedly inducted into the Krishnapatnam
Container Transport Owners Association. The alleged transactions took place
between the years 2021 and 2023. Even according to the prosecution, the
incident originated in the year 2021. The FIR was lodged on 07.06.2025. The
main accused/Accused No.1 was granted regular bail by the learned IV
Additional Judicial Magistrate of 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.
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
10. The objective of the two aforementioned Associations, as per Clause
7(3) of the Memorandum of Association, is to assist their members in securing
maximum rates for their transport services. The prosecution alleges that the
petitioner and other accused established an unauthorized check post, which
was not sanctioned by the Government or the Transport Authorities.
11. It is alleged that in the year 2021, when trailers were sent to transport
materials from Krishnapatnam Port to various destinations, the freight charges
were transferred by the companies to the account of Krishnapatnam Logistics
at ICICI Bank. From there, after deducting their commission, the accused paid
the remaining freight charges to the trailer owners. However, they are said to
have issued fake bills to conceal the actual deductions. Through this method,
the petitioner and other accused allegedly earned around Rs. 3,00,000/- from
the trailer owners who used their transport services. When the de-facto
complainant requested the bills to present them to the trailer owners, the
accused and others allegedly threatened him with dire consequences. Based
on his report, a case in Crime No.167 of 2025 was registered for offences
punishable under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471, 120(B), 109, 506(2), and
386 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
12. As observed, although the alleged incidents occurred over two years
ago, neither the de-facto complainant nor any other aggrieved party reported
the matter to the police at the relevant time. The core allegation is that the
petitioners and other accused extorted freight charges from lorry owners and
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
misappropriated the amounts. There is a delay of more than two years in
lodging the FIR. The explanation given for this delay is that the petitioner and
other accused were in politically influential positions at the time, due to which
the de-facto complainant and other victims were hesitant to approach the
police.
13. 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 out
against 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.
1
2025 SCC Online SC 1157
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
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.
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.”
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
14. Having seen the entire material on record, Accused No.3 gave an
incriminating statement not only against him but also against the present
petitioners who are shown as Accused Nos.6 and 7. 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
petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7.
15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy supra, held that a
confessional statement of co-accused per se inadmissible and no relevance
whatsoever can be placed on such statement at the stage of bail or through
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
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, this Court in Crl.P.No.6412 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025 granted pre-
arrest bail to the Accused No.2 on certain Stringent conditions.
16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged
role placed by the petitioners, the nature of allegations levelled against them,
this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, however, with
following stringent conditions:
a) In the event of arrest of the petitioners/A-6 and A-7, the
petitioners 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall make
themselves available for investigation as and when required;
c) The petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall not cause any
threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 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.
e) The petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall not leave the
district limits without the express permission from the Station
House Officer concerned.
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
f) The petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 shall surrender their
passport, 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.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 23.07.2025
KMS
11
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6547 of 2025
Dated 23.07.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6547 of 2025
Date: 23.07.2025
KMS
[ad_1]
Source link