Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V. Devarajulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
- ,3Jh
-i,
=-E=
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDllRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA
MONDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE ke44
:PRESENT: L/
THE HONOURABLE DR~1usTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO `l¥
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9262 OF 2025 `\te5>rfj¢,
Betwee n :
1. V. Deva+rfajulu, age 32 years, S/o Venkatesulu, (A2j NatI'Ve resident Of
Door No. 2/95/1, Sairam Street, Nagari Town, Chittoor District.
Temporarily residing at Gundrajakuppam village, Nagari MandaI. Cell
No- 7658979779- --
2. V.Jayak\fi;-hna, aged 38 years, (A3j~S/o. Venkatesan, D.No.13, First
Street, Perambakkam village, Cheyuru Taluka, Chengalpattu District,
Tamil Nadu State-3, gr`~
Eiili
3. S.Pandyzan, .aged 42`tryears, (A4)`zS/o. Sundaram (Late),D.No.33/k,
odayar street, Kalpakam Village, Vijalapuram Post, Chengalpa,i,I.u
Taluk, Tamil Nadu State.uJ-+
•`f
4. A. Ajith kidrmar, aged 29 years, S/o Amugam,
(A5) D.No.689]
Mariyamman Koil Street, Ayyan Velur Village Ulundur Peltai Taluka,
``
Kallakurchi District, Tamil Nadu State Le~,
Petitioners/Accugrsedr 2 to 5
AND
The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Through the S.H.o. Nagari Urban Police
station, Chittor District, Rep. by the Public Prosec,utor, HI-gh Court of
\. ,.-
Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
-_a_. -_.*-+_*_±x_ __===-
Respondent/Comp[ainant
\J tt*-l, petition under sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, (New SectI'OnS 4®80 & 46-5-- of BNSS, 2023) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge
-I.. *c, _ __ \rf`fro the Petitioners / Accused No. 2 to 5 on bail in Crime No 143/2025 of Nagari urban police Slat+6-n of chittoor District as they have been in judicial custody since 13_ 07_2025 tr~J~ COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA L, ce±=i-
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR L,' p=EilE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER ORB ER This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 5 under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking`to enlarge them on bail in crime No.-143 of 2025 of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences under Sections 303 (2), 317 (4), 318 (4), 316 (2), and 61 (2) read with Sectl-on 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Sections 4 and '21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,1957. frASE OF THE PROSECU_TIQALi
2. The case of the prosecutI'On iS that On 13.07.2025 at 06:00 hours, near the Tirupati-Tiruttani Highway Road, in the vicI'nity Of the Andhra-Tamil Nadu border, withI'n -the jurisdiction of Thadukupe{a panchayat, Nagari MandaI, Chittoor District, a coordinated operation was conducted by the Revenue and Police authorities based on credible information, pursuant to whI'Ch a detailed panchanama was prepared by K.Meghavarnam, Deputy Tahsildar, Nagari MandaI, wherein it is alleged that the accused persons, namely Bharath (A1), Devarajulu (A2), V.Jayakrishna (A3), S.Pandiyan (A4), A.Ajith Kumar (A5), M.Praveen Kumar (A6), A.S.Sreeji{h (A7), N.Anthony Ashok (A8), Senthil (A9), Bilal (A10), Amrutharaj Nadar @ TRS (All), Proprietor of veI & Co Stone Crushers (A12), and others, formed into an unlawful assembly and entered into a crI'mina`l conspiracy With the intent to commit theft of government Property and tO derive unlawful gain through illegal {railsporfation of sanc!.
3. The said accused persons had procured sand from the government authorised sand reach located at Besthapalli in Annamaiah District, Andhra Pradesh, and, in violation of the prescribed norms, misused the transportation permits issued for ,'r7fra-State movement. With premeditated intent and full knowledge that cross-border transportation of sand constitutes theft and is prohibited under law, the accused concealed the sand beneath layers of stone crusher powder in tippers and attempted to transport the same.to the State of Tamil Nadu. During the said illegal operation, accused Nos.2 to 8 were apprehended at the scene by the joint team of Revenue and Police officials. A total of seven sand-laden tippers were seized, containing approximately 70 units of sand, with an estimated value of Rs.1,05,000/-. The remaining accused, including the proprietor of Vel & Co Stone Crushers, are alleged to have directly facilitated and abetted the commission of the offence. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS.I
4. Sri G.Naga Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 5, submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are are false, fabricated, and politically motivated. lt is contended that their implication is solely due to political rivalry. The petitioners are law-abiding citizens with no prior criminal antecedents.
5. The petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families. They have never been involved in any criminal activity, and no cases are pending against them. lt is submitted that material part of the investigation has been completed. The petitioner-accused No. 2 is permanent resident of Gundrajakuppam vI-Ilage of NagarI- Mandal, Andhra Pradesh state, and the petit][oners-accused Nos. 3 {o 5 are permanent residents of Tam" Nadu State, and undertaketo cooperate wl'{h the jnvestigatjon and they w['ll not abscond or tamper with evidence and are wjlljng to furnish sureties to the satisfactI'On Of the Court for his release on bail.
6. It js further submitted that the petit['oners had earll-er fl-led crI-minal M.P. No.190 of 2025 on the file of the court of learned x Additional Djs{rict and sessions Judge, Tjrupati, seeking bail. However, the said peti{l.on was dismissed on 26.08.2025 without due consideratl®on of the above facts. ARGU ME NTS OF THE ASSI STANT PUBLIC PROSEC UTOR 7] on the other hand, Ms. P.Akila Najdu, the learned Assistant public prosecutor, opposed jn granting of ba" to the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 5 statl|ng that jnvestjgatjon Its not COmPleted; I-f the petitjonersare enlarged on baj[, they would not be available for the investigatl'on, and they will repeat the same offence. It js further argued that the jnvestjgatjon js still at nascent stage. some more witnesses are to be examined and some more documents are yet to be collected.lt I'S urged to djsmjss the petit[-on]
8. Thoughtful consideratI-On iS bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the peti{joners and learned Assistant public Prosecutor,I have perused the record.
POINT FOR C ONSID ERATI ON
9. Now, the pointforconsideration I®S.| E+_ -i ['Whether the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 5 are entitled for grant of bail?
ANALYSIS:
10. The offences alleged under Sections 303(2) and 316(2) of the {BNS', though non-bailable, are punishable with imprisonment up to five years and do not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, warrant continued custodial detention. The petitioners-accused Nos, 2 to 5 were arrested on 13-07-2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 65 days. All the petitioners have undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and trial proceedings. There is no material to suggest any likelihood.of absconding or tampering with evidence. The portion of investigation relating to the alleged role of the petitioners is completed. This, Court has already enlarged on regular bail accused Nos.ll and 13 on 29-08-2025 in Criminal Petition Nos. 8512 and 8484 of 2025. The petitioners are also standl'hg on the similar footing of accused Nos.ll and 13.
ll. In view of the foregoing and thereadiness of the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 5 to abide by conditions imposed by this Court] this Court is inclined to grant bail to them.
CONCLUSION:
12. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 5, their alleged role played in this case and the period of detention undergone by them, thisCourt is inclined to enlarge them on bail with the following stringent conditions:
---`
(i) The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each {o the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate of First `, Class, Nagari;
(ii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, on every saturday in between 10.-00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by learned the Trial Court;
(iii) The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 shall not commI't Or indulge in commissI'On Of any OffenC; in future;
(iv) The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required,I
(v) The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5-shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acqual-nted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police offI'Cer; and
(vi) The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 shall surrender their Passports, 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.
13. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed.
SD/-M.PRABHAKARA RAO
L TRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
I
To,
1. The JudI-CI|aI Magistrate of lst class, Na§z:4ri, chittoor DistrI-C`r
2. The Superintendent, sub Jail, Sftyaveedu, chittoor DI'StrI'Ct `Z
3. The Station House officgzf, Nagari Urban Police station, chittor Distr'rct \ rf,`
4. One CC to SRI. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA Advocate i ././.
[opuc] v. i,/,I
5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT]
6. Onesparecopy ``,,``<+` HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:15/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9262 of 2025 ALLOWED