Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dodla Ravikanth Chowdary vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 June, 2025
APHC010279852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5799/2025
Between:
Dodla Ravikanth Chowdary ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
M. Suguna
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
S. Syam Sunder Rao SC Cum Spl P.P. For ACB
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C') under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Cr.No.01/RTC- KUR/2025 of ACB Kurnool Range, Kurnool for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for brevity 'the Act').
2. The case in brief giving rise to the criminal petition is as follows: 2
Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5799 of 2025 Dated 23.06.2025 The de-facto complainant, Y. Lingamurthy, submitted a written report to the ACB Inspector, Kurnool on 15.05.2025, stating that he had applied for an electric transformer and bore well connection in the names of his sons for their agricultural land at Chinnakambalur Village. After making the necessary payment of ₹18,640 on 03.07.2024, he approached petitioner - A.O.1 - Sri Ravikanth Chowdary, ADE, APSPDCL, Allagadda regarding the installation. A.O.1 entrusted the work to A.O.2 - Prathap of Chinnakambalur Substation. It is alleged that A.O.2 demanded a bribe of ₹40,000 on instructions of A.O.1, which was later reduced to ₹30,000, to complete the installation. The complainant and his friend recorded telephone conversations with the accused officers and approached the ACB.
Upon verification, a trap was laid on 16.05.2025. Α.Ο.2 was caught red- handed while accepting ₹30,000 and tested positive in phenolphthalein test. He confessed to have received the bribe on behalf of A.O.1. Subsequently, ACB officials apprehended A.O.1, seized relevant documents from both accused, and conducted post-trap proceedings. Both accused were arrested after searches at their residences which yielded no further incriminating material. Basing on the said complaint the police registered a case in Cr.No.01/RCT-KUR/2025 of ACB Kurnool Range, Kurnool for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of 'the Act.'
3. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. Suguna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence much less the alleged offence; he is innocent of 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5799 of 2025 Dated 23.06.2025 the alleged charge; he was falsely implicated in the case; the petitioner is a senor and respectable public servant working as Deputy Executive Engineer (Operations), APSPDCL, Allagadda Sub-Division, he rendered service for more than three decades with unblemished record and meritorious service to the State; the allegation that the Accused No.2 received the bribe on behalf of the petitioner is wholly speculative and unsupported by any cogent, independent, or corroborative evidence, and cannot be the basis for continued incarceration of the petitioner.
It is further submitted that the core allegation pertains to a routine administrative process regarding sanctioning of electricity transformer connections in a rural agricultural setting; the process involves technical and logistical delays, transfer of staff, and communication between multiple departments; it was misconstrued and exaggerated into a criminal offence, despite absence of mensrea or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner had no direct role in the field of execution and had merely processed the official file in his administrative capacity. Eventually, it is submitted that the petitioner intends to undertake to abide by any conditions to be imposed for enlarging him on bail and urged to release him on bail.
4. Per contra, Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel Cum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, submits that the petitioner persuaded Accused No.2 to demand an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) as a bribe and on the instructions of the petitioner, the Accused No.2 demanded bribe from the de-fact complainant. Later the amount was reduced 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5799 of 2025 Dated 23.06.2025 to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) to complete the installation. The complainant and his friend recorded the telephone conversation with the accused officers and approached the ACB. Upon verification, a trap was lodged, in which Accused No.2 caught red-handed accepting Rs.30,000/-, and it was tested positive in the phenolphthalein test. Accused No.2 confessed to have received the bribe on the part of the petitioner. Later, the Investigating Officer apprehended the petitioner, seized the relevant documents from him, and conducted post-trap proceedings, of course, searches have not yielded any incriminating material. The investigation is at a nascent stage some more witnesses have to be examined and urged to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Cum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
6. Perused the record.
7. The learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Kunool in Crl.M.P.No.433 of 2025 on 30.05.2025 dismissed the bail application on the ground that Section 164 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' statement of the de-facto complainant/witnesses is yet to be recorded and there would be every possibility of influence the witnesses, therefore, the learned Special Judge dismissed the bail.
8. The learned Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel Cum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, submits that statement under Section 164 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' of the witnesses was recorded on 21.06.2025 and the samples were also sent for analysing the voice test. 5
Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5799 of 2025 Dated 23.06.2025
9. In the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.M Girish Babu v. CBI1 and also Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 7 of 'the Act' unless the demand and acceptance are proved beyond all reasonable doubt it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that there was neither direct nor admissible evidence of such demand or acceptance by the petitioner.
10. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 17.05.2025 and since then for the past 40 days, he has been in judicial custody as such. On perusal of the nature of the allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played, the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, it can be gleaned that there are no chances to the petitioner influencing the witnesses or interfering with the investigation inasmuch as the material part of the investigation is completed including the recording of statement of prime witness under Section 164 of 'the Cr.P.C'/Section 183 of 'the BNSS.,' this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with some stringent conditions.
11. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to 1 (2009) 3 SCC 779 2 2023 SCC Online SC 295 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5799 of 2025 Dated 23.06.2025 the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Kurnool.
ii. The petitioner shall surrender/deposit his passport, if any he has. If he doesn't have a passport, he shall give an undertaking affidavit to that effect.
iii. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation officer in the investigation and if necessary he shall join the investigation. iv. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh without express permission from the learned Special Judge SPE and ACB cases at Kurnool.
v. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Kurnool, on every first Saturday of the month in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of charge sheet.
_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 23.06.2025 Note:
Issue C.C today By KMS 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5799 of 2025 Dated 23.06.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5799 OF 2025 23.06.2025 U KMS