Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Present Application Is Filed Under ... vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary And Another 1 Held on 28 January, 2026
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K. Suresh Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH OF JANUARY, TWO
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA
I.A. NO. 1 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 688 OF 2025
ORDER
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Present application is filed under Section 430 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner/appellant/A.1 seeking her release on bail pending Criminal Appeal before this Court, by suspending the sentence of imprisonment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contends that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. He further contends that the prosecution has failed to establish chain of circumstances pointing out the guilt towards the petitioner/appellant 2 alone and to none others. He further contends that the alleged recovery of gold jewellery from the petitioner/appellant was disbelieved by the trial Court. As such, he requests this Court to enlarge the petitioner/appellant on bail by suspending the sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application, contending that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 24 clinchlingly establish the guilt of the petitioner/appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the bail application.
4. We have carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court.
5. P.W.1 is son of the deceased. A.2 is wife of P.W.1. A.1 is none other than the mother of A.2. A.3 and A.4 are known persons to A.1 and A.2.
6. P.W.1, in his evidence, deposed that his wife, A.2, was frequently talking over the phone, and therefore he took her mobile phone and kept it with him. Thereafter, A.2 took the phone of P.W.5 and made a call to P.W.6, requesting him to take her mobile phone from P.W.1 and hand it over to her. He further deposed that P.W.6 3 informed him that, upon enquiring with A.2, she disclosed that her mobile phone contained material and conversations relating to the plan to kill the deceased. A.2 is also stated to have asked P.W.6 to procure her mobile phone even by killing P.W.1, offering an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as advance and a further amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) upon execution. The same version was spoken to by P.W.6, who supported the prosecution case. The conversation between A.2 and P.W.6 was also retrieved from her mobile phone and was duly proved by the prosecution in accordance with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner/appellant is none other than the mother of A2 and according to the prosecution they both hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased.
7. P.W.5, who runs a tiffin centre near the house of the deceased, on noticing that the deceased did not turn up to take tiffin, went to her house and found her dead. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the neighbours who saw the dead body lying in the house of the deceased. P.W.8, who is the driver of the car, clearly stated in his evidence that the petitioner/appellant travelled in his car to Rajampet, where the deceased was living and returned in the same car at the relevant point of time.
4
8. P.W.12, neighbour of the deceased, also stated in his evidence that A.1 to A.4 were moving on the night of the fateful day. As such, the learned trial Judge has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.12.
9. Further, the prosecution also relies on the evidence of P.W.14 to show that A.1 made an extra-judicial confession before him. P.W.24 conducted panchanama-Ex.P9 in the presence of mediators-P.Ws.18 and 19 in respect of the extra judicial confession. P.W.24 deposed that he forwarded M.Os.6 to 8 to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 17.06.2020. The expert of APFSL was examined as P.W.22, who stated that he examined M.Os.6 to 8 and retrieved WhatsApp chats from M.O.6 under Ex.P15. He retrieved the entire data from M.O.6 under Ex.P16-DVD. Thus, the prosecution could establish the WhatsApp chats between A.2 and P.W.6, wherein she allegedly offered Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs.One Crore only) to eliminate P.W.1. The said electronic data is also certified in accordance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. As such, prima facie material is available on record.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in OMPRAKASH SAHINI VS JAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER 1 held as follows:
1
(2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 123 5 "The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution."
11. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence, the present application is dismissed.
12. Any observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposing the present Interlocutory Application.
________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 28.01.2026 GR 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA I.A. NO. 1 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 688 OF 2025 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Date: 28.01.2026 GR