Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs Rajesh Ranjan (Supra) on 8 May, 2026
APHC010021402026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 343, 344, 345 & 346 of 2026
Criminal petition No.343 of 2026:
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE II TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P.,AMARAVATI.
...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
1. PILLI PADMA, W/O. MURTHY, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 17-7-
25, KANDIPILLI STREET, RAILWAY PEDDAGANTYADA, NEAR
GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
2. KAKARA SATYA @ SATYA KAKARA, W/O. LATE APPARAO, AGED
39 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 32-31-19, KOBBARI THOTA, ALLIPURAM
JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.
3. BELLAPU SURI BABU SURI, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED 39 YEARS,
R/O. D. NO. 15-64/1(2), BAPUJI NAGAR, MADHURAVADA,
KOMMADI, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.
...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos.5 to 7:
Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent/Accused Nos.5 to 7:
1. AYESHA AZMA S
Criminal Petition No.344 of 2026:
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE II TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P., AMARAVATI.
... ...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
2
TANDURU MALLESWAR PARTHASARADHI REDDY, S/O. RAM
MALLESWAR REDDY, AGED YEARS, N/O.D.NO.4-10-203, PRASANTHI
NAGAR, PULIVENDULA, KADAPA DISTRICT, R/O. 2ND FLOOR,
HOUSE NO.1, AMRUTHA NILAYAM, 5TH CROSS, NMH LAYOUT,
SIDEDAHALLI, PESARAGATTA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED No.2
Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent/Accused No.2:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.345 of 2026:
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE II TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P., AMARAVATI.
...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
SUNKESULA SUMAN, S/O. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 32 YEARS, ICU
TECHNICIAN, R/O. D.NO. 4-45, HARIJANAWADA, THIPPAREDDIPALLI,
PENDLIMARRI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED No.17
Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent/Accused No.17:
1. T DIWAKAR REDDY
The Court made the following:
Criminal Petition No.346 of 2026:
Between:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, MADANAPALLE II TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P.,AMARAVATI.
...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
MAJJARI VELU KONDAIAH, S/O. M. KONDAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, OT
TECHNICIAN, N/O. NAGASANIPALLI, KHAJIPETA MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT, R/O. NAGARAJUPETA, SUNRISE HOSPITAL, KADAPA
TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED No.16
3
Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent/Accused No.16:
1. AYESHA AZMA S
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant criminal petitions under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') have been filed by the Petitioner / State seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondents / Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17 vide Orders dated 05.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.Nos.347, 348, 349 and 359 of 2025 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in connection with Crime No.179 of 2025 of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant is the mother of the deceased namely Yamuna. On 06.11.2025, the said Yamuna left the house stating that she was going to Araku Valley. Subsequently, on 11.11.2025 at about 04:50 hours, the son of the de facto complainant received a phone call from the mobile phone of Yamuna informing that she had died at Tirupati. During enquiry, the caller disclosed her name as Pilli Padma and informed that Yamuna had died when she came to sell her kidney.
It is further alleged that, upon contacting one Suri, who was acquainted with the deceased Yamuna, the de facto complainant was informed that he was with Pilli Padma and Satya at a lodge in Tirupati and that the said Pilli Padma and Satya had, through mediation, taken Yamuna to Global Multi 4 Specialty Hospital, Madanapalle, where a kidney transplantation surgery was performed on 09.11.2025 and her kidney was transplanted to another person. It is alleged that on 10.11.2025 between 05:00 a.m. and 06:00 a.m., Yamuna died and thereafter her body was shifted to Tirupati. On the instructions of the de facto complainant, the said Suri dialled 112 and informed the police, pursuant to which the Tirupati Police secured the said persons and handed them over to Madanapalle II Town Police Station, as the surgery had allegedly taken place at Madanapalle.
It is the further case of the prosecution that, upon enquiry at Madanapalle, it came to light that Doctor Anjaneyulu of Global Multi Specialty Hospital, SBI Colony, Madanapalle, along with another doctor from Bangalore, in collusion with Balu, a Dialysis Technician working at Government Hospital, Madanapalle, Mehraz, a Dialysis Technician working at Government Hospital, Kadiri, and others namely Pilli Padma, Satya and Suri, induced the deceased Yamuna with money and got her kidney transplanted illegally, due to which she died. It is also alleged that thereafter the Accused attempted to send the dead body of the deceased to her native village by suppressing the true facts relating to her death.
3. Heard Sri M.Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Petitioner / State and Ms.Ayesha Azma, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy and Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents / Accused. 5
4. Learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of Petitioner / State would submit that the Respondents / Accused involved in a grave and organized illegal kidney transplantation racket and that the investigation is still at a crucial and nascent stage. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the Investigating Officer conducted investigation by visiting the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch, seizing material objects used for kidney surgery under cover of Scene Observation Report, conducting inquest over the deceased in the presence of mediators and forwarding the material objects to Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati for Histopathology examination. It is further submitted that as many as 22 witnesses were examined and their statements were also recorded.
Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that in the above crime, 22 persons were arrayed as Accused and several Accused persons including the Respondents herein were arrested during investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed an application seeking police custody of the Accused persons for custodial interrogation. However, during pendency of the said petition, the learned Sessions Judge mechanically granted bail to the Respondents without considering the gravity of the offence and the vital role played by the Respondents / Accused.
Learned Public Prosecutor would argue that the investigation is incomplete, since the Histopathology Report is yet to be received from Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati and the Investigating Agency is still making efforts to trace absconding Accused persons and ascertain whether 6 any other illegal organ transplantations had taken place. It is further submitted that unless the Accused persons are subjected to custodial interrogation, it is not possible to collect vital information regarding the nature of the offence, involvement of other persons and the illegal transplantation activities carried on by the Accused persons.
Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that the offence committed by the Respondents / Accused is not a result of sudden provocation, but a well-planned and organized crime involving exploitation of poor and destitute persons for illegal organ transplantation. It is contended that the Respondents, though only trainee doctors in the Urology Department, consciously participated in conducting unauthorized kidney transplantation in violation of the provisions of the law. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, such offences have serious adverse impact on society and create panic among the public.
It is further contended that the Court below granted bail merely on the ground of long incarceration and absence of antecedents, without properly appreciating the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the pendency of the police custody petition. Learned Public Prosecutor would therefore submit that the impugned order granting bail is erroneous, contrary to settled principles governing grant of bail and liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondents / Accused would submit that the Respondents are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present crime without there being any direct material connecting them with 7 the alleged illegal kidney transplantation racket. It is contended that the Respondents were only trainee doctors in the Urology Department and were discharging their routine academic and professional duties. Mere presence in the department or participation in medical procedures as part of training cannot automatically amount to involvement in any illegal activity.
Learned counsel would further submit that the investigation has substantially progressed, as the Investigating Officer already visited the scene of offence, seized material objects, examined 22 witnesses and recorded their statements. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continued detention of the Respondents. It is also contended that the alleged Histopathology Report is only a scientific opinion and its pendency cannot be a ground to indefinitely deny liberty to the Respondents.
It is further argued that the Respondents have fully cooperated with the investigation and have been complying with the conditions imposed by the Court while granting bail to them. Learned counsel would contend that custodial interrogation cannot be sought as a matter of routine, particularly when the prosecution already collected the relevant documents, material objects and witness statements.
Learned counsel would also submit that the Respondents are young trainee doctors with no criminal antecedents and their continued incarceration would seriously affect their future career and reputation. It is contended that the Court below, after considering the material available on record, rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting bail subject to 8 conditions and the said order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference.
It is further submitted that the prosecution has not placed any material to show that the Respondents derived any monetary benefit or independently performed any unauthorized transplantation procedure. Therefore, the contention regarding organized crime or societal panic is unsustainable as against these Respondents.
Learned counsel would finally submit that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are supervening circumstances, misuse of liberty or violation of bail conditions. Since no such circumstance is shown by the prosecution, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Point for Determination
6. Having heard the submissions on both the sides and on perusal of the material on record, the following question emerges for determination:
Whether the orders passed by the learned trial Judge granting bail to Respondents / Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17 suffer from any illegality, perversity, or non-consideration of material facts warranting interference by this Court by cancelling the bail granted to them? Determination by the Court
7. It is alleged that Respondent / Accused No.2, a trainee doctor in the Urology Department at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, illegally conducted two kidney transplantation surgeries at the hospital of Accused 9 Nos.1 and 22, despite trainee doctors being prohibited from performing surgeries outside the institution. The Respondent / Accused No.2 allegedly conducted the surgeries without obtaining consent from the donor's family members and without complying with mandatory medical and legal procedures. It is further alleged that he acted in collusion with the hospital management, operation theatre technicians, and mediators in an organized organ trafficking racket by inducing persons to donate kidneys for monetary consideration.
8. The role attributed to Respondent / Accused No.5 is that, she came into contact with Accused No.4 while taking her mother for dialysis treatment at Medicover Hospital, where Accused No.4 allegedly requested her to arrange a kidney donor. Thereafter, she became acquainted with Accused No.6, who had earlier undergone kidney transplantation, and was allegedly offered commission for procuring kidney donors. Subsequently, she came into contact with Accused No.10, who informed her that Accused No.13 was in need of a kidney donor and also offered commission for arranging the same. It is further alleged that, in the meantime, Accused No.6 informed Accused No.5 that one Yamuna (deceased) was willing to donate her kidney. Thereupon, the Respondent / Accused No.5 allegedly informed Accused No.4 that she had arranged two donors, namely the deceased Yamuna and another person by name Harika, and requested for transplantation arrangements. She is further alleged to have contacted Accused No.10 for facilitating kidney transplantation to Accused No.13 and 10 got the transplantation surgery conducted through Accused Nos.2 and 16 to 20 in the hospital of Accused No.1.
9. It is alleged against the Respondent / Accused No.6 that she came into contact with Accused No.5 at Visakhapatnam and was allegedly offered commission for arranging kidney donors. It is further alleged that Accused Nos.5 and 6 approached the deceased Yamuna and induced her to donate her kidney on the promise of payment of Rs.6,00,000/-. Thereafter, they allegedly contacted Accused No.7, with whom the deceased was cohabiting, and convinced them for the transplantation. It is further alleged that, despite the deceased initially being declared unfit for transplantation due to her health condition, Accused No.6, along with others, facilitated the transplantation for illegal gain, which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased.
10. The role attributed to Respondent / Accused No.7 is that he was acquainted with Accused No.6 and was allegedly involved in arranging the deceased Yamuna as a kidney donor in consideration of commission. It is alleged that the Respondent / Accused No.7 had been cohabitating with the deceased and, owing to their financial difficulties, induced and facilitated her agreement to donate her kidney for a consideration of Rs.6.00 lakh. Though the deceased was initially rejected for transplantation due to her health condition, it is alleged that Accused No.7 continued to assist in the process, pursuant to which she later underwent tests and was accepted as a donor. It is further alleged that, after the transplantation surgery, the amounts 11 received were distributed among the Accused persons, including payment of commission to Accused Nos.5 to 7.
11. It is alleged against Respondent / Accused No.16 that he has been working as an Operation Theatre Technician at Komma Hospital, Kadapa, and is acquainted with Accused No.2, for whom he used to assist in urology- related surgeries at Holistic Hospital. Subsequently, Accused No.2 informed him about illegal kidney transplantation surgeries being conducted at Global Hospital, Madanapalle, without permissions, and offered him Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per surgery. Pursuant thereto, Respondent / Accused No.16 allegedly participated in the surgery of the deceased along with Accused Nos.17 to 20.
12. It is alleged that Respondent / Accused No.17 was working as an ICU and Operation Theater Technician at Komma Hospital, Kadapa Town, and came into contact with Accused No.4 through Accused No.16. Accused No.4 allegedly informed him about unauthorized kidney transplantation surgeries being conducted at Global Hospital, Madanapalle, and promised payment of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per surgery. It is further alleged that, at the request of Accused No.4, Respondent / Accused No.17 transported Accused Nos.18 to 20 to Madanapalle, where they participated in the surgery of the deceased.
13. It is a settled law vide a catena of decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court that the following illustrative list of principles are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: 12
a. the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;
b. reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; c. reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; d. character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; e. larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.
14. It is essential now to discuss a few precedents on cancellation of bail. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan1, while cancelling the bail granted to the Accused in a murder case, held as follows:
"20.4.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge- sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses.
20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court categorically held that "The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 13 in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail. ... non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order..."
20.4.3. In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (supra), this Court held that the possibility of the accused absconding or threatening witnesses had a direct bearing on the fairness of the trial. In serious offences, such apprehensions - when reasonably supported by record - must weigh against the grant of bail.
24. On a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120B, and 34 IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions of legally relevant facts. Moreover, the High Court undertook an extensive examination of witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and delays - issues that are inherently matters for the trial Court to assess through cross-examination. The trial Court alone is the appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility and reliability of witnesses. Granting bail in such a serious case, without adequate consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused's role, and the tangible risk of interference with the trial, amounts to a perverse and wholly unwarranted exercise of discretion. The well-founded allegations of witness intimidation, coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence, further reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail. Consequently, the liberty granted under the impugned order poses a real and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice and risks derailing the trial process. In light of these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the present case calls for the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C."
(emphasis supplied) 14
15. In Imran v. Mohammed Bhava2, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"23. Indeed, it is a well-established principle that once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. However, this Court in its judgment in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab has also reiterated, that while conventionally, certain supervening circumstances impeding fair trial must develop after granting bail to an accused, for its cancellation by a superior court, bail, can also be revoked by a superior court, when the previous court granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact. It was thus observed:--
"9. ...... Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana observed that:
"Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
10. These principles have been reiterated time and again, more recently by a 3 Judge Bench of this Court in X v. State of Telegana and Another.
11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has 2 2022 SCC Online SC 496 15 considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system..."
24. xxxxxxx
25. xxxxxxx
26. Thus, while considering cancellation of bail already granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however, bail when granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the lower court. In such instances, where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the decisions cited herein above, enumerate certain basic principles which must be borne in mind when deciding upon an application for grant of bail. Thus, while each case has its own unique factual matrix, which assumes a significant role in determination of bail matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard to the above-mentioned well-settled principles."
(emphasis supplied)
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta3, held that even without misuse, bail can be cancelled for grave allegations if the lower court ignored material.
17. Considering the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner / State and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents / Accused, and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the Respondents disclose a grave and organized illegal kidney transplantation racket involving exploitation of economically vulnerable persons for monetary gain. 3 (2011) 6 SCC 189 16
18. The material collected during investigation prima facie reveals that the deceased Yamuna was induced to donate her kidney for financial consideration and that the transplantation was allegedly carried out in violation of mandatory statutory requirements and medical protocols. The allegations further disclose that several persons involved in in arranging donors, facilitating transplantation procedures, transporting participants and conducting surgeries without lawful authorization. The investigation, as placed before this Court, is still in progress. The Investigating Officer has already visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, seized material objects used in the kidney transplantation surgeries, conducted inquest over the deceased and forwarded the material objects to Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati for Histopathology examination. Statements of 22 witnesses have also been recorded. However, the Histopathology Report is still awaited and efforts are continuing to trace absconding Accused persons and ascertain the full extent of the illegal transplantation activities.
19. This Court finds considerable force in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that custodial interrogation of the Respondents is necessary for effective investigation into the larger conspiracy, involvement of other persons, source of monetary transactions and the manner in which unauthorized transplantation procedures were conducted. The record further reveals that an application seeking police custody of the Accused persons was pending consideration when the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the Respondents.
17
20. The allegations against Respondent / Accused No.2 are of serious nature. Prima facie material indicates that though he was only a trainee doctor in the Urology Department at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, he allegedly conducted kidney transplantation surgeries outside the institution in clear violation of institutional restrictions and without following mandatory legal procedures. The allegations further prima facie indicate his active participation in conducting unauthorized surgeries in collusion with other accused persons.
21. Similarly, the allegations against Respondent / Accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 disclose their active involvement in identifying and procuring kidney donors by inducing poor persons with monetary promises. The material on record prima facie indicates that they facilitated the transplantation of the deceased despite awareness regarding unfitness for transplantation and that the transplantation ultimately resulted in her death.
22. The role attributed to Respondent / Accused Nos.16 and 17 also cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The investigation prima facie reveals that they knowingly participated in the unauthorized transplantation surgeries for monetary consideration and assisted in organizing the operation along with other accused persons.
23. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents that the Respondents are only trainee doctors or supporting staff and that no direct material is available against them cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly in view of the prima facie allegations regarding their participation 18 in the illegal transplantation procedures. The gravity of the offence, the organized nature of the crime and the serious societal impact flowing from illegal organ trafficking are relevant considerations while deciding the question of bail.
24. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have granted bail mainly on the grounds of long incarceration and absence of criminal antecedents without adequately considering the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the pendency of the police custody petition and the necessity for custodial interrogation. Admittedly, in the present case, Accused Nos.5 to 7 have been in judicial custody since 15.11.2025, Accused Nos.16 and 17 from 25.11.2025 and Accused No.2 from 04.12.2025, whereas, the date of the impugned orders is 05.01.2026. Thus, the duration of custody at the time of consideration of bail was comparatively short and cannot, by itself, be construed as long incarceration warranting enlargement on bail, particularly when the investigation was still at a crucial stage. The records further indicate that the investigating agency had sought police custody and asserted the necessity for custodial interrogation for effective investigation into the role of the accused. These aspects required deeper consideration before extending the discretionary relief of bail.
25. It is an admitted position that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had moved an application seeking police custody of the accused persons for the purpose of custodial interrogation, which was 19 pending consideration before the competent court. However, during the pendency of the said custody application, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the respondents on 05.01.2026 without adverting to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the prima facie material collected during investigation, and the specific allegations indicating the active and vital role played by the accused persons in the commission of the offence.
26. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate dismissed the custody petition on 12.01.2026 on the ground that bail had already been granted by the Sessions Court. Though it is settled law that there is no absolute bar on the grant of bail during pendency of a police custody application, the judicial discretion in such matters must be exercised with circumspection, particularly where custodial interrogation is sought at a crucial stage of investigation.
27. In the present case, the grant of bail appears to have been made in a mechanical manner, without due consideration of the nature and seriousness of the offence, the role attributed to the accused persons, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for unearthing the complete chain of events. Such an order has the effect of frustrating the ongoing investigation and undermining the interest of justice.
28. It is well settled that bail granted in disregard of material circumstances, or without proper application of mind to relevant factors, is liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction for cancellation of bail. The paramount consideration in such cases is whether the accused, if 20 enlarged on bail, would impede the investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bail granted to the respondents warrants cancellation, as it suffers from non-consideration of relevant factors and is likely to prejudice a fair and effective investigation.
29. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the accusations, the stage of investigation, the requirement of custodial interrogation and the prima facie material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order granting bail to the Respondents / Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
30. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the Orders dated 05.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.Nos.347, 348, 349 and 359 of 2025 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in connection with Crime No.179 of 2025 of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle granting bail to the Respondents / Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17, are hereby set aside and the bail granted to them stands cancelled. Respondents / Accused are directed to surrender before the concerned Jurisdictional Court within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Investigating Agency is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure their custody. After surrender, the Respondents / Accused Nos.2, 5 to 7, 16 and 17 are at liberty to file fresh applications for bail. On such application, the Court concerned has to take decision on its own merits.
21
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:08.05.2026 Dinesh 22 THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 343, 344, 345 & 346 of 2026 DATE:08.05.2026 Dinesh