Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kakani Govardhan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.399 of 2025
Between:
Kakani Govardhan Reddy
...APELLANT
AND
1. The State Of Ap Rep By Its PP Hyd
2. Indla Padma.
3. Nimmala Prasanna.
4. Rapuru Suresh.
...RESPODENT(S)
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 18.08.2025
2
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.A.No.399 of 2025
18.08.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
3
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.A.No.399 of 2025
18.08.2025
* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.399 of 2025
% 18.08.2025
# Between:
Kakani Govardhan Reddy
...APELLANT
AND
1. The State Of Ap Rep By Its PP Hyd
2. Indla Padma.
3. Nimmala Prasanna.
4. Rapuru Suresh.
...RESPODENT(S)
! Counsel for the Petitioners : O M R LAW FIRM
^Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, Public Prosecutor
Smt. M.Vidhyavathi
< Gist:
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Dr. Justice Y.Lakshmana Rao :-- For the convenience of exposition,
this order is divided into the following parts :--
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.4
C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Nos.2 to 4
E. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
4
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.A.No.399 of 2025
18.08.2025
G. ANALYSIS
i. Circumstances which are peculiar to the Appellant/Accused
ii. Character of the Evidence - Co-Accused confession
iii. Nature and Seriousness of the offence/allegation
iv. Apprehension of threat to the Complainant or Victims
v. Larger interest of the Public or the State
vi. Apprehension of tampering with the evidence
vii. Apprehension of presence of Accused being secured at the
trial
viii. Pendency of cases against Accused, not criminal
antecedents
ix. Flight risk
H. CONCLUSION
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (2020) 13 SCC 337
2) 2025 SCC Online SC 1157
3) 2025 SCC Online SC 1690
4) 2025 INSC 979
5) (1977) 4 SCC 308
6) (2020) 11 SCC 648
7) 2024 SCC Online Cal 6370
8) (2014) 16 SCC 508
9) 2017 (2) TLNJ 619 (Criminal)
5
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.A.No.399 of 2025
18.08.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 399/2025
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act') seeking to enlarge the appellant on bail by challenging the order dated 20.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1024 of 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, (for short 'the learned Special Judge') whereby and whereunder the bail sought by Accused No.4 was dismissed. FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. The Respondent No.2, by letter dated 07.12.2023 lodged report against the persons involved in illegal quarrying in an extent of Ac.31.71 cents in Sy.Nos.697, 699, 751/2, 759/1, 759/2, 924 & 925 of Tatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The case of prosecution, as detailed, has its genesis from a report given by the de-facto complainant, M. Balaji Nayak, District Mines and Geology officer, Nellore vide Letter No.1872/M/2015 dated 14.02.2025. An FIR was registered as a case in Cr.No.24/2025 dated 16.02.2025 under Sections 447, 427, 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'the I.P.C.,') and Section 3 of the 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'PDPP Act') and Section 21(1) and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (for short 'MMDR Act') against Accused Nos.1 to 3. It was mentioned that Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, former Minister, and present MLA of Telugu Desam Party from Sarvepalli Legislative Constituency started conducting a Dharna at the said quarry on 16.12.2023 with a protest against illegal quarrying operation. Dharna went on till early hours of 19.12.2023. Following evacuation of the Dharna, a visit was made to the quarry site and found that no quarry operations had been carried out since 15.12.2023, based on a representation filed by Y. Vidhyakiran as per the directions of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The quarry was non-
operational, subsequently.
3. The District Vigilance Squad (DVS) team and technical personnel of the office concerned kept a tab on the site. Later, it was found that some of the residents, purportedly supported by the then ruling party members, had started illegal quarrying activities forcibly. On a follow-up visit, and with inquiry from Village Revenue Officers (VROs) and residents, it was determined that illegal quarrying of Quartz and Feldspar minerals was done and being exported to China through Chennai Port. Notices were sent under Rule 26(1) and (ii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity 'the Rules, 1966') to Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy. 7
Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025
4. Aggrieved by the lodging of the FIR, Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Petition No.1950/2025 for quashment of proceedings. A learned single judge of this Court directed the respondent authorities to follow Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS') (equivalent to Section 41-A of 'the Cr.P.C.'), as per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and also restrained the police from taking coercive action against Accused No.1 pending further orders.
5. On 28.02.2025, the Investigating Officer submitted an Alteration Memo in Cr.No.24/2025 before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate mentioning that during investigation, 11 witnesses' statements were video-graphed, the site of offence was visited, Mahazar was drawn and signed by mediators, and photo and video evidence were gathered. On 27.02.2025, the statement of LW-11, Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, was taken, in which he incriminated further offences under Sections 120-B, 109, 290, and 506 of 'the I.P.C.,' and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Accordingly, Accused Nos.4 to 10 were included in the list of accused. Thereafter, on 31.03.2025, another Alteration Memo was submitted by the Investigating Officer to the Jurisdictional Magistrate adding the provisions viz., Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (2) (va), and 3 (2) (iii) of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act.,' based on statements of LW-13 to LW-15.
6. The Appellant had earlier filed a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in Crl.P.No.3344/2025 before this Court. By an order dated 21.04.2025, the 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 Registry was directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate Bench to decide the maintainability of anticipatory bail under 'the BNSS'. The matter was assigned to a Division Bench and reserved for orders. The Appellant also moved Petition in Crl.P.No.3292/2025 requesting to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.24/2025. The interlocutory application there in, I.A.No.2/2025, was rejected vide Order dated 09.04.2025, and the Criminal Petition is still pending.
7. The Appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for challenging Orders dated 08.05.2025 and 21.04.2025 in Crl.P.No.3344/2025. However, Special Leave Petitions (SLP Nos.7489 & 7490/2025) were withdrawn on 16.05.2025. Accused No.6 and Accused No.8 were remanded to judicial custody on 23.03.2025 and Accused No.7 on 28.03.2025. This Court granted bail to Accused No.6 in Crl.A.No.304/2025 by Order dated 20.05.2025 and Accused No.7 and Accused No.8 in Crl.A.No.366/2025 by Order dated 05.06.2025. The Appellant filed Bail Application in Crl.M.P.No.1024/2025 before the learned 'Special Judge' under Section 483 of 'the BNSS'. The application was dismissed by Order dated 20.06.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal praying for his enlargement on bail.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4
8. Sri O. Manohar Reddy learned Senior Counsel representing Sri C. Subodh, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned 9 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 order dated 20.06.2025 passed by 'the learned Special Judge' is legally unsustainable and factually erroneous. The report submitted by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore vide Letter No.1872/M/2015 dated 14.02.2025 does not contain any specific allegation implicating the Appellant in the alleged illegal quarrying activities. The report categorically named only two individuals, Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy, as being involved in unauthorized extraction of Quartz and Feldspar minerals and their export to China via Chennai Port. Notices were issued to them under Rule 26(1) and (ii) of 'the Rules, 1966'. The show-cause notice issued by the same authority vide No.3420/M/1995 dated 12.08.2024 reiterates that only upon inspection and enquiry, the involvement of the two individuals was noticed. The Joint Inspection Report dated 06.08.2024, prepared by the District Mines and Geology Officer and other technical staff, also does not attribute any role to the Appellant in the alleged illegal quarrying.
(a) Sri O. Manohar Reddy learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submits that even in the subsequent communication dated 12.02.2025 addressed to the Station House Officer, Podalakur, the District Mines and Geology Officer named only three individuals, Pernati Syam Prasad Reddy, Vakati Siva Reddy, and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy, as responsible for the illegal quarrying, and recommended action against them alone. Alteration memo filed on 28.02.2025, which seeks to add Sections 120-B, 109, 290, and 506 of 'the I.P.C.,' and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, is based 10 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 solely on the statement of LW-11, Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy. It is contended that the said witness harbors political animosity against the Appellant, having been defeated by him in the 2019 General Elections from the Sarveypalli constituency. The Appellant asserts that the allegations made by LW-11 are politically motivated and intended to malign his reputation.
(b) It is further submitted that apart from the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.6, there exists no substantive material implicating the Appellant. Even the said confession merely suggests that the Appellant assured other accused of protection from departmental interference, which does not constitute incriminating evidence. The Appellant contends that such a statement, being self-serving and uncorroborated, cannot be relied upon to array him as an accused. He further submits that Appellant had filed an application for anticipatory bail on 25.03.2025 and a petition under Section 482 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' on 26.03.2025 seeking to quash the proceedings. The matter was listed on 27.03.2025 and adjourned to 01.04.2025. However, in the interregnum, the prosecution filed an alteration memo dated 31.03.2025 adding Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (2) (va), and 3 (2) (iii) of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act.,' which appears to be a calculated move with political motives by false implication to defeat the Appellant's claim for protection under Section 35(3) of 'the BNSS'. The allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of offences under Sections 447, 427, 379 r/w 34 of 'the I.P.C.,' Section 3 of the PDPPA, Sections 21(1) and 21(4) of the MMDRA, 11 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 Sections 120-B, 109, 290, 506 of 'the I.P.C.,' and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
(c) Sri O. Manohar Reddy learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the statements of LWs.13 to 15, which form the basis for invoking the provisions of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act.,' do not contain any specific allegations against the Appellant. Even a prima facie reading of the said statements fails to attract the ingredients of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act.' The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submits that although certified copies of the statements of 15 witnesses under Section 161 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' were furnished on 02.04.2025, the prosecution subsequently produced the statement of LW-25, allegedly recorded on 28.03.2025, which was not made available earlier, thereby raising serious doubts about procedural fairness.
(d) It is furthermore submitted that during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application, the learned Advocate General relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court to argue that an application under Section 438 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' is not maintainable. The Appellant disputes this interpretation and submits that the provisions of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act.,' are not attracted in the present case. Investigation is complete, and 36 witnesses have been examined. The learned Trial court, however, dismissed the bail application without appreciating the factual matrix and merely observed that the allegations against the Appellant are serious and that he is allegedly 12 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 involved in other crimes, without substantiating the same. The Appellant is willing to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose and prays for his release on bail and urges to allow the Criminal Appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
9. Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations are grave in nature that the Appellant cause illegally trespassed into the Government land, unlawful extraction of Micaceous Quartz and Feldspar minerals, and subsequently exported to China. Appellant, who held the position of responsible Minister at the relevant time, conspired with other accused persons and facilitated the illegal mining operation by misusing his official capacity. The investigation has revealed that the Appellant actively instigated and supported the use of explosive substances for blasting operations, thereby enabling the extraction of approximately 61,313 metric tons of quartz from Ac.32.71 of government land. The said minerals were exported through Chennai Port, causing a loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.138 crores, as per the Inspection Report of Mines and Geology Department. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the statements of LWs.11 and 12, who are crucial witnesses, clearly establish the conspiracy and the role of the Appellant in the commission of the offence. Based on their depositions, the Investigating Officer has collected vital documentary evidence including email correspondences, aerial Google imagery of the mining site, and photographs of explosive materials used. The 13 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 statement of LW.25, dated 23.02.2025, a partner in M/s Rustum Mines and Minerals, the previous leaseholder explicitly implicates the Appellant in the illegal mining activity.
(a) It is further submitted that several witnesses, namely LWs.13, 14, 15, 32, and 33, belong to Scheduled Tribe communities residing near the mining site. These individuals had suffered due to the illegal mining operations and stated that they were threatened with dire consequences when they questioned the accused. Their testimonies are critical and susceptible to influence if the Appellant is enlarged on bail. Accused No.7 was arrested on 28.03.2025 and his confession led to the identification of a dumping yard at Thoderu village, Podalakur Mandal, native village of the Appellant, where the extracted quartz was stored prior to export. This clearly indicates the Appellant's direct involvement and orchestration of the crime. Further, Accused Nos.6 and 8, arrested and remained in police custody from 05.04.2025 to 06.04.2025, have confessed to the active role played by the Appellant. The Appellant himself was arrested on 25.05.2025 and remained in police custody from 06.06.2025 to 08.06.2025, during which he failed to cooperate with the investigation.
(b) Accused Nos.11 and 12, arrested on 18.07.2025 and 21.07.2025 respectively, have also confessed to assisting the Appellant and other accused in the commission of the crime, including providing land for dumping the illegally extracted minerals. The Call Detail Records (CDRs) establish 14 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 telephonic communication between the Appellant and Accused Nos.1, 3, and 11 during the relevant period, further corroborating the conspiracy. LW.36 stated regarding the procurement and delivery of explosive substances to the mining site, which were used under the Appellant's direction. The investigation is still underway, with substantial financial trails yet to be unearthed. Several accused remain absconding, and additional witnesses are yet to be examined.
(c) The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that considering the Appellant's political influence and stature, there exists a real and imminent risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, particularly those belonging to vulnerable Scheduled Tribe communities and derailing the investigation. The possibility of suppression of crucial facts and deviation of investigative proceedings cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prays to dismiss the present Criminal Appeal and reject the prayer for bail, as granting such relief at this stage would be detrimental to the fair and impartial progress of the investigation and would compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
(d) Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana the learned Public Prosecutor, submits that as many as 36 witnesses were examined. Lw.1 and 2 are the official witnesses. Lw.11 and 12 are the crucial witnesses and they have clearly stated about the conspiracy and the commission of crime and basing on the said statements the Investigating Officer seized crucial documents along with E-mail Copies 15 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 and aerial Google Photos of the subjected illegal mining and the other photographs related to the explosive substances.
(e) The Lws.1 to 10 were examined and basing on their statements some material was collected about illegal mining activities and subsequently, the statements of LWs.26 to 31 were recorded and they stated about the involvement of the Appellant/Accused No.1.
(f) If this Court grants bail to the appellant, there is a possibility that the entire investigation will be deviated, and the crucial facts will be suppressed by tampering the crucial evidence. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor eventually submits that if Appellant/ Accused No.4 is benefitted with grant of bail, he will use all his influence to deviate the investigation by suppressing crucial facts and evidence. As several witnesses in this case are Schedule Tribes, they may be susceptible to threats or inducements from the Appellant/Accused No.4 stature. Appellant/Accused No.4 is not entitled to relief of regular bail at this stage and it urged that the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos.2 to 4
10. Smt. M.Vidhyavathi, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the investigation has been conducted fairly, meticulously and progressively unearthing further details and identifying the full extent of the criminal conspiracy. This natural progression of the investigation justifiably led to the alteration of the FIR and the inclusion of more stringent sections, 16 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 including those from 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act.' On 28.02.2025, a significant alteration memo was filed. This development occurred based on the statement of LW-11, Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, which revealed deeper layers of the conspiracy. This led to the addition of more serious sections of 'the I.P.C.,' specifically Section 120(B), 109, 290, and 506 of 'the I.P.C'. Furthermore, Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act were added, indicating the use of explosives in the illegal quarrying operation. Crucially, the Appellant along with Accused Nos.5 to 10, were identified as key players his highlights appellant's integral role in the broader conspiracy, extending beyond the initial FIR.
(a) A critical point in the investigation, and a primary reason for the present opposition to bail, occurred with the recording of statements from certain victims belong to the Scheduled Tribes. On 03.03.2025, the detailed statements of LWs 13 to 15 were recorded. All three victims are bona-fide members of the Scheduled Tribe (Yandhi community) and reside in Vardapuram Girijana Colony, Tathiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Their identity and vulnerability are crucial to the case. Based on their statements, which specifically detailed acts committed against them by the accused (or at their behest) while knowing that these individuals were members of a Scheduled Tribe, an additional alteration memo was justifiably filed on 31.03.2025. This led to the invocation of Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(iii) of 'the SC & ST Atrocities (PoA) Act'. These alterations were not 17 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 arbitrary but a direct consequence of credible evidence emerging from the victims themselves. The Appellant's central contention that the provisions of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act' are not attracted is unequivocally false and baseless. This argument attempts to mislead the Court by downplaying the gravity of the offences committed against the most vulnerable sections of society. For regular bail in cases involving 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act', the Court must satisfy itself that no prima facie case exists, or that the allegations are entirely groundless. In the present case, a robust prima facie case, supported by victim statements and the ongoing investigation, clearly exists. The lower court's dismissal of the regular bail application was thus justified, recognizing the serious nature of the allegations under 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act'.
(b) Smt. M.Vidhyavathi, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the Appellant's arguments attempt to portray the prosecution case as fabricated and politically motivated, is lacking in substance, and no maliciousness involved. The prosecution is fulfilling its duty to bring all conspirators to justice, regardless of their standing. The Appellant's attempt to discredit the prosecution by highlighting a minor discrepancy between the quantity mentioned in the show-cause notice (61,313 MT) and the remand report (>63,000 MT) is a red herring. The core allegation remains that a massive, well-organized, and illegal extraction of quartz mineral took place, causing a loss of crores of Rupees to the public exchequer. The figure of Rs. 18
Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 138 crores loss, as estimated in the remand report of the Appellant, underscores the severity of the economic crime committed. The suggestion that the allegations are politically motivated due to past election results (as claimed by the Appellant regarding LW-11) is a classic diversionary tactic employed by individuals of influence to escape justice. The prosecution's case is built on material evidence, including the direct statements of the victims (LWs 13-15), who have no political affiliation. Their statements are consistent and point directly to the Appellant's involvement in the illegal quarrying and the atrocities against them. The remand report of the Appellant further solidifies the case by detailing the Appellant's pivotal role as a key conspirator who allegedly assured others of protection from police, revenue, and mining officials. This indicates a deep-seated involvement beyond mere political rivalry.
(c) Smt. M.Vidhyavathi, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 further submits that it is the inherent and bound on duty of opposition parties and their leaders to bring to light illegal and unconstitutional acts perpetrated by the ruling party or its leaders. In this scenario, Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, an MLA and a recognized opposition leader, acted within his legitimate purview by agitating against the illegal mining activities in the area. His actions, therefore, should be viewed as a responsible exercise of his duties as an opposition leader, aimed at protecting public interest and upholding the rule of law, rather than being dismissed as mere political rivalry. To weaken the 19 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 case on this ground would be to undermine the vital role of the opposition in a democratic set up. The Appellant's assertion that the investigation is complete and his further custody is unnecessary is a convenient but false claim. The remand report explicitly states that the investigation is still ongoing to establish the "network of conspirators, co-conspirators, exporters, facilitators etc. and recovery of the fraud amount from the accused." Furthermore, the report clearly indicates that the Appellant was absconding for two months, actively hindering the investigation and escaping from the clutches of law. His continued custody is essential for the unearth of the full truth and to prevent him from further obstructing the investigation.
(d) It is further submitting that the victims, the 2nd to 4th respondents, have a genuine and well-founded apprehension that if the Appellant is released on bail, their lives will be in grave danger, and the entire course of justice will be subverted. With regard to risk of tampering and intimidation of witnesses, the remand report itself explicitly submits that if the Appellant is enlarged on bail, there is every chance in tampering the key evidence, intimidating and influencing the witnesses and obstructing the course of investigation. Given the Appellant's powerful social and political standing in the Nellore District, his release would enable him to use his immense influence to coerce, threaten, and manipulate witnesses, including the vulnerable victims. Crucial documents related to the illegal mining, including financial records and official communications, could be destroyed or altered. The victims are from a 20 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 marginalized community and are directly opposing a powerful and influential political figure who is accused of serious economic offences and atrocities under 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act'. Their safety is paramount. The Appellant's release would undoubtedly create an atmosphere of extreme fear and could lead to direct threats, intimidation, and even violence against them. Their statements have already placed them at great personal risk. The victims, therefore, live in constant fear of retaliation. Denying bail is crucial to ensure their physical safety and enable them to participate in the legal process without coercion.
(e) It is further submitted that the Appellant cannot claim parity with other co-accused who were already granted bail. The Appellant/Accused No.4 is a central figure in the conspiracy, wielding significant influence and power, as evidenced by the allegations in the remand report and witness statements. His role is demonstrably different, and his continued liberty poses a far greater risk to the investigation and society. The offence is not a random act but a systematic, large-scale criminal enterprise involving the illegal extraction of minerals worth crores. Releasing the accused would embolden him and others to repeat such offenses, sending a wrong signal and undermining the authority of the State and its natural resources. The order in Crl.M.P.No.1024/2025 passed by 'the learned Special Judge', which dismissed the bail application, correctly noted the allegations against appellant as serious, and he is involved in other crimes, describing it as a serious attack on public property and 21 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 economic sovereignty. In the light of the above submissions, Smt. M.Vidhyavathi, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits to dismiss the Criminal Appeal and uphold the decision of 'the learned Special Judge'.
11. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and Smt. M.Vidhyavathi, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. I have carefully perused the record.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
12. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the Appellant is entitled for grant of bail?"
ANALYSIS
13. In this case, certain interesting turns of events have taken place. They are enumerated hereunder. On 02.01.2024, the de-facto/complainant, District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore addressed a letter to the Director of Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore, complaining against unauthorized occupation of mining area with the support of politicians and expressed the difficulties to control the rampant illicit quarrying with meagre staff of the department and requested the intervening of other departments. In this letter there is no reference about the name of the Appellant. A show-cause notice was issued to Accused No.2 and 3 by the District Mines and Geology Officer on 12.08.2024. Following this, on 14.02.2025, the de-facto complainant, sent a report to the 22 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 Station House Officer vide letter No. 1872/M/2015. This led to the police registering a case in Cr.No.24/2025 on 16.02.2025, for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427, 379 r/w 34 of 'the IPC.,' section 3 of 'the PDPP Act.,' and sections 21 (1), 21 (4) of the MMDAR Act.,' against three individuals identified as A1 to A3.
14. On 24.02.2025, Accused No.1 filed a quash petition vide Crl.P.No.1950/2025, which prompted the court to direct the respondents to follow Sec.35 (3) of 'the BNSS.,' and instructed the police not to take coercive steps against Accused No.1. However, on 28.02.2025, the police filed an Alteration Memo in Cr.No.24/2025. stating that during their investigation, they had examined 11 witnesses, visited the scene, inspected and drafted a Mahazar, taken photographs and video, and drew a rough sketch. The police also added Accused Nos.4 to 10 and included sections 120 (B), 109, 290, 506 of 'the IPC.,' and Sec.3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act.
15. The Appellant then filed an application for anticipatory bail in Crl. P. No.3344/2025 on 25.03.2025. Appellant filed criminal petition No.3292/2025 to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.24/2025, on 26.03.2025. Another alteration memo was filed by the police on 31.03.2025, adding sections 31 (r), 3 (2) (va) and 3 (2) (iii) of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act' based on the alleged statements of witnesses LW-13, 14, and 15. A learned single judge of this court, on 21.04.2025, referred the matter in Crl. P. No.3344/2025 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of an appropriate bench to decide if 23 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 the alleged offence attracts the provisions of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act'. A special bench was subsequently constituted, and the matter regarding maintainability was heard and reserved for orders. The Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 21.04.2025, and 08.05.2025, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos. 7489- 7490/2025. However, the Appellant was given to understand that it was due to a drafting error, the Appellant withdrew the Special Leave petitions.
16. On 26-5-2025, the Appellant was arrested by the police and produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri (I/c) Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Gudur. The Appellant was remanded to judicial custody on the same day. Subsequently, on 20.06.2025, 'the learned Special Judge' dismissed the bail application filed by the Appellant in Crl.M.P.No.1024/2025. Aggrieved by that order of dismissal, the Appellant preferred an appeal under section 14A (2) of 'the SC & ST Atrocities PoA Act.,' to set aside the impugned order and for the granting of regular bail.
17. In this regard, it is apposite and profitable to refer to the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. CBI1, where the entire law on grant of bails was discussed. At paragraph Nos.16, 17, 22 to 25 it is held as under:
"16. Expression of prima facie reasons for granting or refusing to grant bail is a requirement of law especially where such bail orders are appealable so as to indicate application of mind to the matter under consideration and the reasons for conclusion. Recording of reasons is necessary since the 1 (2020) 13 SCC 337 24 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025
18.08.2025 accused/prosecution/victim has every right to know the reasons for grant or refusal to grant bail. This will also help the appellate court to appreciate and consider the reasonings for grant or refusal to grant bail. But giving reasons for exercise of discretion in granting or refusing to grant bail is different from discussing the merits or demerits of the case. At the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching upon the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. Observing that "at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided", in Niranjan Singh [Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 508] , it was held as under : (SCC pp. 561-62, para 3) "3. ... Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself."
17. In the present case, in the impugned judgment, paras 52 to 75 relate to the findings on the merits of the prosecution case. As discussed earlier, at the stage of considering the application for bail, detailed examination of the merits of the prosecution case and the merits or demerits of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, should be avoided. It is, therefore, made clear that the findings of the High Court in paras 52 to 75 be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of refusal to grant bail and the same shall not in any way influence the trial or other proceedings.
22. There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that "flight risk" of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straitjacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to "flight risk" is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved.
23. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] , it was held as under : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well-settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also 25 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)"
24. Referring to the factors to be taken into consideration for grant of bail, in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. [Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 481] , it was held as under : (SCC pp. 21-22, para 16) "16. ... The considerations which normally weigh with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offences have been explained by this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh [State v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 215] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] and basically they are -- the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case."
25. After referring to para 11 of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] , in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] , it was held as under : (Amarmani Tripathi case [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] , SCC p. 31, para 18) "18. It is well-settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character 26 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.""
18. In this context, it is also apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, at Para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under:
"27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta.
53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges:
(iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively.
In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused."
2. 2025 SCC Online SC 1157 27 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 3, held while culling out the principles for grant of bail at paragraph No.19 as under:
"19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court. [See : Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban9 and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu10]
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law;
relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above."
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan4, while elaborately dealing with the law relating to grant or cancellation of bail, set aside the bail granted to the accused therein.
Circumstances which are peculiar to the Appellant/Accused:
21. Upon perusal of the entire case record, it is evident that initially name of the Appellant has not been mentioned in the FIR. Of course, absence of the name of an accused, while unusual, does not vitiate the investigation 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690 4 2025 INSC 979 28 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 conducted thus far. Allegations of the prosecution against the Appellant are that he actively instigated and supported the use of explosive substances for blasting operations, thereby enabling the extraction of approximately 61,313 metric tons of quartz from Ac.32.71 of government land. It is not the case of the prosecution that Appellant himself extracted minerals and cause extracted them. It is the allegation of the prosecution that he instigated and supported extraction of minerals, although it is contended that co-accused spoke about direct involvement and orchestration of the Appellant. The minerals were allegedly exported to China through Chennai Port, causing a loss to the public exchequer. The Mines and Geology Department's inspection report confirms the illegal extraction of 61,000 metric tons of quartz minerals.
22. In fact, the report submitted by the District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore vide Letter No.1872/M/2015 dated 14.02.2025, does not contain any specific allegation implicating the Appellant in the alleged illegal quarrying activities. The report categorically named only two individuals, Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy, as being involved in unauthorized extraction of Quartz and Feldspar minerals and their export to China via Chennai Port. Notices were issued to them under Rule 26(1) and (ii) of 'the Rules, 1966'.
23. A show-cause notice issued by the same authority vide No.3420/M/1995 dated 12.08.2024, reiterates that only upon inspection and 29 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 enquiry, the involvement of the two individuals was discovered. The Joint Inspection Report dated 06.08.2024, prepared by the District Mines and Geology Officer and other technical staff, also does not attribute any role to the Appellant in the alleged illegal quarrying. Yet, in the subsequent communication dated 12.02.2025 addressed to the Station House Officer, Podalakur, the District Mines and Geology Officer named only three individuals, Pernati Syam Prasad Reddy, Vakati Siva Reddy, and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy, as responsible for the illegal quarrying, and recommended action against them alone.
Character of the Evidence - Co-Accused confession:
24. Alleged confessional statement of Accused No.7 led to the identification of a dumping yard at Thoderu village, Podalakur Mandal, native village of the Appellant, where the extracted quartz was stored prior to export. Prosecution contends that it clearly indicates the Appellant's direct involvement and orchestration of the crime. Further, Accused Nos.6 and 8 allegedly confessed the active role of the Appellant. Accused Nos.11 and 12 also allegedly confessed that they had assisted the Appellant and other accused in the commission of the offences, including providing land for dumping the illegally extracted minerals. Thus, the nature of evidence available is confession of the co-accused against the Appellant during police custody. As mentioned supra, LWs.13, 14, 15 are the persons belonging to the ST community, in their 30 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 statements they did not reveal the name of the Appellant. However, the contention of the prosecution is that the Call Detail Records (CDRs) establish telephonic communication between the Appellant and Accused Nos.1, 3, and 11 during the relevant period, corroborating the conspiracy. CDRs may not in all events speak about conspiracy or abetment of the offence, when the Accused is a political leader and all the other co-accused are his political followers.
Nature and Seriousness of the offence/allegation:
25. It is the contention of the Appellant that an alteration memo was filed on 28.02.2025, seeking to add Sections 120-B, 109, 290, and 506 of 'the I.P.C.,' and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, based solely on the statement of LW-11, Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, who was defeated by the Appellant in 2019 general elections from Sarveypalli legislative constituency, and therefore, it is the allegation of the Appellant that L.W-11 harbors political animosity against the Appellant intended to malign his reputation.
26. As seen from the record, apart from the confessional statement of Accused No.6, there exists, so far, ex-facie, no substantive material implicating the Appellant. Even though the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contends that the said confession merely suggests that the Appellant assured the other accused of protection from departmental 31 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 interference, which does not constitute incriminating evidence, the said contention cannot be appreciated at this juncture. It must be appreciated at the time of the trial, but not in this appeal. This court is conscious of the settled principle of law that at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching upon the merit of the case, which may prejudice either the Appellant or the case of the prosecution, should be avoided.
27. The statements of LWs.13 to 15, which form the basis for invoking the provisions of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (POA) Act.,' do not contain any specific allegations against the Appellant. There is no reference about the name of the appellate in those statements. The Appellant contends that he has been falsely implicated with political motives and that the additional sections were invoked solely to deprive him of the statutory protection under Section 35 (3) of 'the BNSS'.
28. As seen from the entire material on record, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the appellant. There is no mention or reference anywhere that the Appellant was there at the time of alleged illegal extraction of minerals. In the show cause notice dated 12.04.2024, issued to Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy, the District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore, stated at Table-I that the total volume of the pit was 1,28,432.000 Cu.M; the total volume in metric tons was 3,21,080.000; the permitted quantity 32 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 was 67,119.000; and the quantity dispatched illegally was 61,313.000. The show cause notice further records that the technical team recommended initiating action against Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy under Rule 26(i) & (ii) of 'the Rules, 1966', as they had conducted illegal quarrying in the subject area. It was also mentioned in the show cause notice that the VRO, Tatiparthy, attended the inspection, and upon enquiry with the VROs as well as residents, it was revealed that certain persons were conducting illegal quarrying and exporting the minerals to China via Chennai Port through various exporters.
29. In Table-II, it is mentioned that the quantity dispatched illegally was 61,313.000 MT, and the normal seigniorage fee @ Rs.100/- per MT was calculated. It was further stated that a penalty of ten times the seigniorage fee, amounting to Rs.61,13,13,000/-, was imposed under Rule 26(2)(i) of 'the Rules, 1966'. The total amount directed to be paid was Rs.7,56,60,272/-. It was also noted that, in case of failure by Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy to pay the said amount, a penalty of five times the seigniorage fee would be initiated against them under Rule 26(2)(i) of 'the Rules, 1966'. The show cause notice was treated as a demand notice, and in case of default, recovery could be ordered under the Revenue Recovery Act.
Vakati Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy submitted their explanation to the said show cause notice. Surprisingly, the investigating officer calculates 33 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 and states that Rs.138 crores was the loss caused to the public exchequer, of course, based on the confession of the co-accused.
30. In the complaint lodged by the District Mines and Geology Officer on 14.02.2025 before the Station House Officer, Podalakur Police Station, reference was made to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 12.02.2025 and to the explanations submitted by the two persons, vide reference No.10, letters dated 17.09.2024, through their counsel Sri P. Bhaskar Rao.
31. In the complaint lodged by the District Mines and Geology Officer, the name of the appellant does not find place. In the letter dated 12.02.2025 addressed by the District Mines and Geology Officer to the Station House Officer, Podalakur Police Station, reference was made to the issuance of a show cause notice and the explanations submitted by the aforesaid two persons. In the said letter, it was further mentioned that, in addition to the above names, one Peranati Shyam Prasad Reddy was also involved along with them in conducting illegal quarrying of minerals and exporting the same to China via Chennai Port.
32. The District Mines and Geology Officer, by letter dated 27.12.2023 addressed to the Station House Officer, Podalakur Police Station, informed that in the subject mining area, a quarry lease had earlier been granted to M/s Rustum Mica Mining Company, represented by its Managing Partner, K. 34 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 Vijaya Bhaskar. The lease was in force from 11.04.1996 to 10.04.2016. Since the leaseholder failed to apply for renewal in accordance with the rules on or before 31.08.2023, the said lease became ineligible with effect from 01.04.2023. As on that date, no lease was in force in respect of the subject government land.
33. Further, on 02.01.2024, the District Mines and Geology Officer addressed a letter to the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, stating that it had become extremely difficult for them to control rampant quarrying of quartz in the district, which was being carried out with the backing of politicians. With the meagre staff available in the department, it was not possible to effectively tackle the issue. Hence, a request was made to involve the concerned departments, namely Revenue, Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, and others, to intervene and control the illicit quarrying
34. Even in the statement of L.W.11, it is only mentioned that, with the aid and support of the appellant, who was then a Cabinet Minister, his followers illegally extracted minerals by using explosive substances. It is not the contention of L.W.11 that the appellant himself either caused extraction or participated in the extraction of minerals; the allegation was confined to the followers of the Appellant having illegally extracted minerals. 35
Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025
35. In W.P.No.31524 of 2023 filed by M/s Rustum Mica Mining Company, an affidavit was submitted admitting that unauthorized persons were attempting to remove excavated Mica, Quartz, and Feldspar along with allied minerals, which were kept in the stockyard. It was brought to the notice of the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 07.11.2023, with a request to grant dispatch permits for removal of the minerals. However, there was no response, and meanwhile, there was a threat of removal by unauthorized persons. Accordingly, M/s Rustum Mica Mining Company sought an interim direction in the writ petition. This admission by M/s Rustum Mica Mining Company in its affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition amounts to an admission under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. The writ petition was filed on 04.12.2023.
36. It is also relevant that the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant was withdrawn. Though the appellant stated that there were no antecedents against him, the State pointed out before the Hon'ble Apex Court that there were several antecedents, leading to withdrawal of the SLP.
37. Furthermore, in the statements of L.Ws.32, 33, 34, and 35, there is a reference to the name of the appellant. However, L.Ws.32 and 33, who belong to the Scheduled Tribe community, did not allege that the appellant was present at the time of mining, nor that he himself threatened them with dire consequences to attract the provisions of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act'. 36
Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 They only allegation was that the followers of the appellant threatened them with dire consequences.
38. When the appellant filed two petitions, one on 25.03.2025 for grant of anticipatory bail, and another on 26.03.2025 for quashment of FIR provisions of 'the SC & ST Atrocities (PoA) Act were added to the case. It is the contention of the Appellant/Accused that it is a calculated move at the advise of MLA of Sarvepalli to defeat the claim for protection of appellant under Section 25(3) of 'the BNSS'.
39. It is not the case of the prosecution that L.W.25 earlier conducted excavation without license in the subject premises of mining. Government earlier granted license to L.W.25, but later Pernati Syam Prasad, Vakti Siva Reddy and Vakati Srinivasulu Reddy continued quarrying operations without license, as per the version of the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the license of M/s Rusthum Mica Mining Company had expired, and that the accused highhandedly occupied the mining area and illegally extracted minerals from there.
40. Indeed, the Appellant/Accused No.4 was ordered to be in police custody from 06.06.2025 to 08.06.2025. For about three days he was in police custody. The Appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 26.05.2025. The Appellant has been in judicial custody for the past 84 days. So far, nearly 36 witnesses have been examined in this case in course of investigation. In this 37 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 case, a learned single judge of this Court granted bail to Accused No.6 in Crl.A.No.304/2025 vide Order dated 20.05.2025 and Accused No.7 and Accused No.8 in Crl.A.No.366/2025 vide Order dated 05.06.2025. Apprehension of threat to the complainant or victims:
41. Complainant in this case is District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore.
He is a government servant. Appellant is neither MLA nor Minister. Victims are ST Yanadi community, residents of Tathiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Appellant is a political leader, who served as Minister and earlier elected as MLA. Hence, his release on bail may not be a peril to the victims. As Appellant is not in political power at present, the apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor or learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 is only a misplaced one. A fortiori, if a direction is given to the Appellant not to enter Nellore district till the completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet, it would serve the purpose.
Larger interest of the public or the State:
42. On the statement as L.W.11 given by the present former minister and present MLA of Sarvepalli Legislative Constituency the appellant, the former minister and MLA of Sarvepally Legislative Constituency is arraigned as accused in this case. Therefore, there is legal and political tussle in between two political leaders of different parties in one constituency. The accused-
political leader contends that due to political vendetta he was falsely 38 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 implicated in this case. Whereas, L.W.11-political leader alleges that accused had caused and perpetrated illegally excavated mines worth of more than one hundred crores.
Apprehension of tampering with the evidence:
43. The material placed on record does not indicate any direct threat or tampering attributable to the Appellant during the pendency of the investigation. Furthermore, the investigating agency has secured the bank account details of the Appellant and his close relatives to ascertain the financial transactions relevant to the alleged offences. It is pertinent to note that this case is the first among fourteen cases registered against the Appellant, all of which are founded upon confessional statements. The reliance on confessions alone, without corroborative material, raises concerns regarding the evidentiary strength of the prosecution's case.
44. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in all the connected cases, the Appellant has been enlarged on bail. The persons, who were figured as Accused in this case, were already granted bail. The Appellant stands on similar footing, and no distinguishing circumstances have been pointed out by the prosecution to justify a deviation. The principle of parity, coupled with the absence of compelling grounds for continued detention, weighs in favour of the Appellant.39
Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025
45. Most of the material collected during the investigation is co-accused confession, which is basically a weak piece of evidence. Nearly thirty-six witnesses have been examined, and their statements are recorded. Therefore, there may not be any reasonable apprehension of threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence. Definitely, the investigation is not at nascent or rudimental stage. Prime portion of the investigation is completed, hence there may not be a chance of impending the investigation. The Appellant got fixed abode. He is a permanent resident of Nellore. The Appellant being a former Minister and former MLA of Sarvepalli Legislative constituency and a political leader. One cannot say that it is reasonably impossible to secure the presence of the Appellant at the time of the trial.
46. In the statements of L.Ws.13, 14, and 15, the name of the appellant is not mentioned, nor is there any allegation that he intentionally insulted or intimidated members of the Scheduled Tribe community. The allegations made against the appellant are bald to attract the provisions of 'the SC & ST Atrocities (PoA) Act'. Indeed, to attract the provisions of 'the SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act' scheduled offence ought to have been committed against SC/ST person with the knowledge of the victim's caste. Its applicability requires proof of caste-based intent, not just the act itself.
47. There may not be any chance of Appellant absconding or fleeing away, in case the Appellant is enlarged on bail. The Appellant may not have a 40 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 chance of committing the offence again since he is not in power. If certain stringent conditions are imposed on the Appellant while enlarging him on bail interest of justice would be sub-served as the bail is the rule and jail is the exception as laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand5.
48. The apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 is that the Appellant may tamper with the evidence or witnesses is not a ground to refuse bail inasmuch as they are vague in nature. There is no allegation that before his arrest he had threatened any witness or intermeddled with the investigation. The Appellant contends that a political vendetta was taken against him. Apprehension of presence of Accused being secured at the trial:
49. The appellant is highly qualified, and held MLA and Cabinet Minister posts, as such there may not be any doubt that his presence would be difficult to secure.
Pendency of cases against Accused, not criminal antecedents:
50. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 vehemently argued that there are altogether thirteen cases against the Appellant and there is every possibility of interfering with the investigation and threatening the witnesses, if the Appellant is enlarged on bail. Mere pendency of one or more cases against the Appellant/accused 5 (1977) 4 SCC 308 41 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 itself cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent so as to deny bail to the petitioner while exercising the special power conferred on this Court by Section 439 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of UP., 6, Arabul Islam v. State of W.B., 7 and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., 8 . We are informed and shown that the Appellant/accused has been granted bail in most of the pending cases and there is no complaint of misuse of the bail conditions as imposed by the Courts. No materials or circumstances have been brought to the notice of this Court about Appellant tampering of evidence or intimidating witnesses in previous criminal cases.
Flight Risk:
51. The IO.,' can avoid flight risk if the passport of the Appellant is directed to be secured and kept in custody of the 'the IO.,' till the conclusion of the trial.
52. Further, more importantly, it is made clear that the findings, if any, of this Court in this judgment be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of considering either grant or refusal to grant bail and the same shall not in any way influence the trial or other proceedings. 6
(2020) 11 SCC 648 7 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6370 8 (2014) 16 SCC 508 42 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 CONCLUSION:
53. Considering the settled principles governing bail, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail petition. Accordingly, the Appellant shall be entitled to be released on bail subject to the following stringent conditions, ensuring his cooperation with the ongoing investigation and refraining from any act that might prejudice the further investigation and impending trial.
54. In the result, Criminal Appeal is ALLOWED, subject to the following stringent conditions:
i. The Appellant/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail on executing bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, if he is not required in any other crime;
ii. The Appellant/Accused No.4 shall co-operate with the investigating officer and shall furnish necessary information and record which is legally permissible under law;
iii. The Appellant/Accused No.4 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana without express permission from the Investigating Officer;
iv. The Appellant/Accused No.4 shall hand over his passport to the investigating officer till the conclusion of trial;43
Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 v. The Appellant/Accused No.4 shall not commit any offence like the offence of which he is accused or suspected of commission.
vi. The Appellant/Accused No.4 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted of the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
vii. The Appellant/accused No.4 shall make his presence before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 AM and 5.00 PM till the filing of Charge sheet;
viii. The Appellant/accused No.4 shall not enter the limits of Nellore District until the completion of the entire investigation and filing of charge sheet; ix. The Appellant/accused No.4 shall not give his voice to the Print and Electronic Media in any form about the merits and demerits of the instant case pending against him, as it amounts to sub-judice; x. The Appellant/Accused No.4 shall appear for each adjournment during the enquiry/trial and cause to conduct cross-examination of the witnesses of prosecution without taking adjournment and if the Appellant/Accused failed to cross-examine on the given date without justifiable cause, the bail granted to him under this Order would automatically stand cancelled.
xi. The Appellant/Accused No.4 shall not dispute his identity in the case, when he was absent and the witness is present to be examined. This 44 Dr.YLR,J Crl.A.No.399 of 2025 18.08.2025 Court or the Court to which the case is made over for trial can cancel his bail, unless an application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witnesses present even in his absence provided. The Appellant/Accused shall give his Undertaking in writing that he would not dispute his identity as the accused in the case as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Doongar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 9.
55. In case any of the above conditions are intentionally violated, the bail given to the Appellant/accused No.4 would automatically be cancelled either suo-moto or on an application by the Investigating Officer in this regard.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 18.08.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o VTS 9 2017 (2) TLNJ 619 (Criminal)