Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And on 31 December, 2025
APHC010365352025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7548/2025
Between:
Molabanti Sekhar Babu Alias Swarna Sekhar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS') by the Petitioner/Accused No.10 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.24 of 2025 in Podalakur Police Station, SPSR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'the I.P.C'), Section 3 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (for brevity 'the DPDP Act'), 21(1), 21(4) 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity 'the MMDR Act').
2. Sri Ramatirtha Y., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He was falsely implicated in this case. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. He would abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail. He is an agriculturist. Accused No.6 in Crl.A. No.304 of 2025, vide order dated 29.05.2025, was enlarged on bail by this Court, and it is urged to allow the appeal, as the learned Special Judge has not considered the petition filed for grant of pre-arrest bail by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR, he was implicated subsequently in this case. The petitioner has got fixed abode and law-abiding citizen. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and he would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge them on bail, and it is urged to allow the petition.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner, seeking to quash the FIR insofar as he is concerned, approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Crl.P. No. 3488/2025, contending that he has not committed any offence as alleged and has no connection with the alleged offences. The enquiry conducted by the concerned authority confirmed the involvement of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 only, notices were served on them, and information was gathered with the assistance of the VRO, Thatiparthi. The petitioner was not served with any notice alleging his involvement. It is submitted that due to his political affiliation 3 as a supporter of Kakani Goverdhan Reddy, L.W.11, Sri Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy, leader of the Ruling Party, allegedly instigated the police to add offences, including under the Explosive Substances Act, against the petitioner and others. The petition for quashing the FIR is pending before this Hon'ble Court, and despite the order dated 02.04.2025 directing the Registry to list the matter, it has not yet been listed, and thus Crl.P. No. 3488/2025 has not been considered.
4. In view of the above, the petitioner was advised to seek anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court at Nellore, i.e., in the Court of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. Accordingly, Crl.M.P. No. 1027/2025 was filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying for anticipatory bail. However, by an order dated 10.07.2025, the petition was dismissed on an erroneous view of facts and law, without considering the petitioner's case in its proper perspective.
5. It is submitted that while considering Crl.M.P.No.1027/2025, the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the circumstances relating to the addition of Sections to the FIR and the inclusion of Accused Nos. 4 to 10 based on the subsequent statement of L.W.11, who is admittedly a political leader. The learned Judge also disregarded the extensive proceedings between the Mines and Geology Department, A.P., and Accused Nos. 1 to 3, and erroneously concluded that the petitioner was part of a criminal conspiracy with all accused to illegally export minerals using explosives, thereby allegedly causing loss to the public exchequer.
4
6. It is submitted that no material exists to support such a conclusion. The dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition was based solely on statements made by the Public Prosecutor, without supporting evidence. The petitioner's presence is essential to look after his elderly parents, who are suffering from age-related ailments. The FIR against the petitioner has been registered with a political motive.
7. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the accusation against the appellant is well founded and the learned Sessions Judge has fairly dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. The investigation is not completed; hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.
8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
9. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?"
10. As seen from the record, the allegation of prosecution is that on 16.02.2025 at 13.00 Hours the complainant/M.Balaji Nayak, District Mines and Geology Officer (FAC) SPSR Nellore District, lodged report contending that prior to 15.12.2023 at 00.00 hours Accused No.1 Pernati Syamprasad Reddy, Accused No.2 Vakati Shiva Reddy, Accused No. 3 Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy and others were trespassed in Government Land situated in Survey Nos.697, 699, 751/2, 759/1, 759/2, 924 and 925 of Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal and damaged, and committed theft of Micaceous, Quartz and Feld Spar Minerals illegally which is public property and transporting to China via 5 Chennai Port in huge manner. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.24/2025 has been registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Podalakur Police Station against some of the accused in the above case without showing the name of this petitioner as accused and subsequently by way of Memo dated 28.02.2025 the Inspector of Police, Podalakur Circle, added Accused Nos.4 to 10 intimating to the Court. During the course of investigation he examined as many as 11 witnesses, visited the scene of offence, inspected it and drafted a Mahazar attested by the mediators and he alleged to have examined L.W.11 Sri Somi Reddy Chandra Mohan Reddy on 27.2.2025and recorded his statement, and as per his Statement Sections 120 (B) 109, 290, 506 of 'the I.P.C.,' and Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for brevity 'the ES Act') will attract in addition to the existing sections and Accused Nos.4 to 10 have to be added as accused in the above case.
11. It is submitted that by considering the above Memo dated 28.02.2025 the above Section of Law has been added to the FIR and it is submitted that again, by way of a Memo dated 31.03.2025 the Inspector of Police, Podalakur Circle, filed another Memo before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur stating that during the course of investigation he said to have examined L.Ws.13 to 15 (Indla Padma, Nimmala Prasanna and Rapuru Suresh) who belong to Anadi by caste and as per their version Sections 3 (1)
(r), 3(2) (va) and 3 (2) (iii) of 'the SCs & STs(POA)Act' and requested the learned Court to add the said Section of Law.
12 As per the de-facto complainant, M. Balaji Nayak, District Mines and Geology officer, the incident i.e, trespassed in Govt Lands and damaged and 6 committed theft of Micaceous Quuartz and Feldspar Minerals illegal in Sy Nos.697, 699, 751/2, 759/1, 759/2, 924 & 925 of Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal was occurred prior to 15.12.2023 but the de-facto complainant, M. Balaji Nayak filed the report before P.S. Podalakur on 14.02.2025, the Police Received the complaint on 17.02.2025. Initially the de-facto complainant, M. Balaji Nayak, gave complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and others. After filing the Memo for alteration of Sections and adding of Accused, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.10.
13. The genesis of the prosecution case lies in the report lodged by the District Mines and Geology Officer, SPSR Nellore District, alleging that prior to 15.12.2023, certain individuals, namely Accused Nos.1 to 3, along with others, had unlawfully trespassed into Government land situated in Survey Nos.697, 699, 751/2, 759/1, 759/2, 924 and 925 of Tatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal. It is alleged that the said accused, without any lawful authority or licence, engaged in illegal quarrying operations, damaged public property, and committed theft of micaceous quartz and feldspar minerals, which were subsequently transported in large quantities to China through Chennai Port, thereby causing colossal loss to the public exchequer.
14. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.24 of 2025 was registered at Podalakur Police Station under Sections 447, 427, 379 read with 34 of 'the I.P.C.,' Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity 'the PDPP Act') and Sections 21(1) and 21(4) of 'the MMDR Act'. Initially, the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused. However, the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Podalakur Circle, filed an alteration 7 memo dated 28.02.2025 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, wherein, based on the statement of LW.11, Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy, additional offences under Sections 120-B, 109, 290, and 506 of 'the I.P.C.,' as well as Sections 3 and 5 of 'the ES Act.,' were invoked, and Accused Nos.4 to 10, including the petitioner, were added.
15. Subsequently, by another memo dated 31.03.2025, the Investigating Officer sought to incorporate provisions under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(iii)of 'the SCs & STs (POA) Act', on the basis of statements recorded from LWs.13 to 15, who belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community. It was thus alleged that the accused, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, not only engaged in illegal mining operations but also caused damage to the houses and properties of members of the Scheduled Tribe community by using explosive substances, thereby attracting the rigours of the special enactment.
16. The petitioner, who was subsequently arrayed as Accused No.10, contends that his implication is politically motivated, being a supporter of the leader of the opposition party. It is his case that no notice was ever served upon him during the departmental inquiries conducted by the Mines and Geology Department, which had primarily confirmed the involvement of Accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner asserts that his name was introduced only at a later stage, based on the statement of LW.11, a political leader of the ruling party, and that there is no independent material to substantiate his alleged complicity in the offences.
17. Despite these contentions, the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, while considering Crl.M.P.No.1027 of 2025 filed under Section 438 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' 8 declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the offences alleged are grave in nature, involving criminal conspiracy, illegal mining with explosives, and loss to the public exchequer running into crores of rupees. The petitioner now seeks the indulgence of this Court, urging that the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent material demonstrating his involvement, and that his continued implication is a consequence of political vendetta rather than lawful investigation.
18. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the loss occasioned to the public exchequer, the prima facie material collected during investigation including mahazars, and corroborative testimony of witnesses, as well as the invocation of special statutes such as 'the ES Act.,' and 'the SCs & STs (POA) Act', this Court is constrained to hold that the offences alleged are not only serious in nature but strike at the very foundation of public order and social justice; the petitioner, being subsequently arrayed as an accused on the strength of incriminating statements, cannot seek the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail as a matter of course, for to do so would amount to granting a charter of immunity to one who stands accused of organized illegal mining, criminal conspiracy, and acts of intimidation against vulnerable communities, thereby frustrating the ongoing investigation and undermining the deterrent object of criminal law. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the appellant/Accused No.10, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the appellant/Accused No.10, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the petitioner who had allegedly committed serious offences, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court 9 in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab 1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. There are no merits as the Petitioner is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.
19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the Petitioner/Accused No.10 to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court concerned within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned for enlarging him on bail. The learned Jurisdictional Judge may endeavour to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by affording due and sufficient opportunity to both sides and pass appropriate orders within a period of one (01) week as far as possible.
_______________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.12.2025 KMS 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 10 222 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7548 of 2025 Date: 31.12.2025 KMS