Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dodla Ravikanth Chowdary vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 June, 2025
.,,,
-i,
cr
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMA
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
: PRESENT: `-
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA R
CRIMINAL PETI"ON NO.r 5799 OF 2025
Between :
Dodla Ravikanth Chowdary, S/o. D. Raghupathi Naidu, Aged 50 years, Occ-.
Additional DivisionaI Engineer (ABE), APSPDCL, AIlagadda Sub-Division,
Allagadda Town, NandyaI District, R/o. H.NO.33/9-10-A, Rythu Nagar,
NandyaI Town and District.
Petitioner/Accused No. fl
ARE'D
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
Respondent/Complainant
Petition under Section 437 & 439 `of Cr.P.C/under Section 480 & 483 of
BNSS, pray'lng that in the circumstances stated in the Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on ball,
p'ending trial in Cr.No.01/ROT-KUR/2025 on the file of ACB KurnooI Range;
KurnooI.
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: |``Jtsqgi M. Suguna
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: Sg'i S. Syam Sunder Rao, Standing
3®umseI-Gum-Spl. Public Prosecutor
f®pr.ACB
The Court made the followin
\_+__
/
.`+ -. -
t'' I 'APHCO10279852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
:',i : E]fi,E]
" ,. ,i:a:-I.:;:I AT AMARAVATl [3521]
(sp;cial original Jurisdiction)
.+
~he;;...i ` ap:I,-_.` `Jl.
I
. (`&`=..`r;j'1.I ..JfE.
I.. '-_ia_',i MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE
+'|*~ +
`3 _,i.¢`,.*. `
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
RE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5799/2025
Between :
Dodla Ravikanth Chowdary ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State oflAndhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
M. Suguna
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
S. Syam Sunder Rao SC Gum SpI P.P. For ACB
RE
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 fthe Cr.P.C]) under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petit-loner/Accused on bail in Cr.No.01/RTC- KUR/2025 of AC.B KurnooI Range] Kurnool for the offence punishable under section 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, ZQ18J_for brevity tthe ActJ).
_----._`-..---~-__.-_`^ _fo
2. The case in brief giving rise to the.criminal Petition iS aS follows:
\
-A~.D =EiI 2 L Dr.YLr\;'j Crl.P.No.5799 of 2025 Dated 23.06.2025 The de-facto complainant, y. Ll'ngamurthy, submitted a written report to
-`--. __ the ACB Inspector, Kurnool on 15.05.2025, stating that he had appll-ed for an elec{rI®C transformer and bore well connectI[On I-n the names of h]'s sons for their agricultural land at chinnakambalur village. After making the necessary payment of €18,640 on 03.07.2024, he approached pe{jtioner -A.O.1 -Sri _-__`---`' I Ravikanth chowdary, ADE, APSPDCL, AIIagadda regarding the installation. A.O,1 entrusted the work to A.O.2 -Prathap of chI|nnakambalur Substation. It js alleged that A.O.2 demanded a bribe of €40,000 on jns{ructions of A.O.1, which was later reduced to €30,000, {o complete the I-nstallatl'on. The complajnant and his friend recorded telephone conversations with the accused officers and approached the ACB.
upon verification, a trap was lal-d on 16.05.2025. A.O.2 was caught red- li=iilillliiiiiii± handed while accepting €30,000 and tested positive in phenolphthalejn test.
-\,,.`-` .,_~\| He confessed to have received the bribe on behalf of A.O.1.-Subsequently, I-, --l®-`-\.-_ --. I ACB offI-CjalS apprehended A.O.1, set-zed relevant documents from both accused, and conducted post-trap proceedings. Both accused were arrested after searches at their residences whLcJ], yielded no further incriminating materI'al. Bas[|ng on the said complaint the police registered a case ]'n cr.No.01/ROT-KUR/2025 of ACE KurnooI Range, Kurnoo[ for the offence PunI'Shable under Sections 7 and 12 of fthe Act.I
---RT,.
3. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned senior counsel a-ppearing for smt. suguna, the learned counsel for the pe{itl'oner, submits that the petI|tI-Oner has not commlltted any offence much less the alleged offence,. he is I-nnocent of Q1.-.`.
+.= `S'
.
c,z/,'
+
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5799 of2025
Dated 23.06.2O25
the alleged charge; he was falsely implicated in the case; the petitioner I-S a senor and respectable public servant working as Deputy Executive Engineer (Operations), APSPDCL, AIIagadda Sub-DivI-SiOn, he rendered service for more than three decades with unblemished record land meritorious service to
-,S the State,I the allegation that the Accused No.2 received the bribe on behalf of the petitioner is wholly speculative and unsupporfed by any cogent, independent, or corroborative evidence, and cannot be the basis for continued incarceratI-On Of the Petitioner.
J± is further submitted that the core allegation pertains {o a routI-ne administrative process regarding sanctI-Oning 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, fa 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 hI'S administrative Capacity. Eventually, it is submitted that the petitioner intends to undertake to abide by any conditions to be imposed for enlarging hI-m On bail and urged to release him on bail.
---__----...----.
4. Perconfra, Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned standI-ng Counsel Gum Special Public Pros_ecutor for ACB, submits that the petitI-Oner Persuaded Accused No.2 td 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 &l demanded bribe from the de-fact complainant. Later the amount was reduced
-,, ;i8 |. 4 Dr.Y-LR, 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 recc,rded the telephone conversation with the accused officers and approached the ACB. Upon verification, a trap was lodged, in whI'Ch 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 _---==\,-i---i-_=.`.-I L --.` . _ -.I `_ 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 a{ a nascent stage some more witnesses have to be examined and urged to dismiss the petition.
5. Hea.rd the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the le'arned Standing Counsel Gum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
6. Perused the record.
7. The learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Kunool in CrI.M.P.No.433 of 2025 on 30.05.2025 dismissed the bail application on the ground that Section 164 of f{he Cr.P.C.,I statement of the de-facto complainant/witnesses is yet to b6 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 Gum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, submits that statement under Section 164 of lthe Cr.P.C.,I of the witnesses was recorded on 21.06.2025 and the samples were also sent for analysing the'voice. test.
``-` from EI 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5799 of 2025 Dated 23.06.2025
9. ln the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the.
-
petitioner it is held by the HonJble Apex Court in C.M Girish Babu v. CBI1
--. (-_ _. ^_-
and also Neeraj Dutta v. State (NOT of Delhi)2 that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 7 of ithe 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 petI|tiOner.
10. The petitioner was remanded to J-udiCial Custody On 17.05.2025 and `-~`~~`~.. . `... ~._l-`.`n. -. ,= - .-`.`.|~-~``l.LT.S`_l,.^~`_l~~- 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, hI'S r --- `-`__I-` -.
alleged role played, the seriousness of the allegations and the`stage of the
-- -wh .-,-I investigation, it can be gleaned that there are no chances to the petitioner .` ,,-`_.---..,I.` influencing the witnesses or interfering with the investigation inasmuch as the
-i-_ _..^>`_,,: .--A -I material part of the investigation is completed i n cl u d=ingr,._±h§ re,cordin.g of ~fz~,, e#tfa-ofr-
a,,?`+ statement of prime witness under Sect.ion 164 of lthe Cr.P:~>,C'/Section 183 of _ -----.``--.-`-. `---L..`.`-_` Ithe BNSS.,I this Court is I'nClined tO enlarge the PetitI'Oner On bail With some
-_-_` stringent conditions.
ll. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following conditions:
i. The p-eti{ioner shall be enlarged on bail `subject io him execu{I'ng a bond for a Sum Of Rs.50JOOO/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to ; £2oO2039!%cSCoCn l7n7e9sc 295 a -- .--.'~J PL`-I - -i-I-i 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5799 of2025 Dated 23.06.2025 C| the satisfaction of the learned special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Kurnool.
Ii. The petjtI'Oner shall surrender/deposI't his Passport, I'f any he ~-~" - ` _. .._ I.`tl.-``-_~`~ll.-~~++i.~._ `. : A=```.'l-I._i---'`-' I has, If he doesnJt have a passport, he shall gI-Ve an undertaking affidavit to that effect.
ijj, The petjtI'Oner shall cooperate vyl|th the I-nVeStjgation officer in the investigation and if necessary he shall joI-n the investigatl-on. iv. The petI'tiOner shall not leave the state of Telangana and
-T\l`=_,~y. 'fro-`:Iei=SREl\± Andhra pradesh without express permission from the learned SpeclLal Judge SPE and ACB cases at Kurnool. v. The petitioner shall appear before the learned special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at kurnooI, on every first _ - -_`` I Saturday of the month in between
10.-00 am and o5:00 pm, tI|II fI-ling of charge sheet.
sB/=F¥.TA.TA RAO '{\--`{= i-:.r ,I DE PUTYffi's TEA[q I lTFTREtF=== GOPY ll •FoT SECT£ON OFi=FFt=ER •To, •_-.S_i
1. The S.pecial Judge for SPE and`'ACB Cases, KurnooI. 2, The `Deputy,superintendent of pL6!ice, Anti Corrupt''on Bureau, Kurnool Range, KurnooI.
?
3. The superI|ntendent,. Di|strjct `jai`!, Kurnool ..`\-.* ` -' 4, Two CCs Special pirblic Proseck!tor, Antj-Corruptl'on Bureau, High Court ofAndhra pradesh at Amara\`,Oat:i. {by RPAD)
5. One CC to Sri M. Suguna, Advocate [opuc]
6. One spare copy I/.®.--
I-
\ HIGH COURT \ \ DR.YLRJ DATE.. 23/06/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5799 of 2025 ALLOWED *.