Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thummathati Rajasekhar Alias Potti ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PE"TION NO: 8075 OF 2025
Between :
Thummathati Rajasekhar @ Potti Raja, S/o. Thummatha{i Jarge, aged
about 44 years, R/o. B.C.Colony, Muthukur Village, Muthukur Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District. (A-8)
+ \, ...Petitioner/Accused No.A8
LAND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Repl: by Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
...Respondent
petition under section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the
circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition,
the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.A8
on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.167/2025 on the file of Muthukur
police station, dated o7.06.2025 under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471,
120(b),109, 506(2), 386 r/w 34 lPC;
The petition coming on for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and
the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the
arguments of sri c.subodh, Ac!vocate for the Petitioner and Public
prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following;
TiZFap_5=-isi±SfF7
2
The Court made the following ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
b
Nagarik Suraksha Sanh.ita, 2023 (for brevity lthe BNSS'.) by the petitioner for
g'ranting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.167 of 2025 of
Muttukur Police.Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu NeIIore District, registered for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471,120(b),
109, 506(2), 386 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short lthe lPC').
2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that the de-facto complainant is the
owner of F.S. transport. Accused No.1, who was elected as Member of
Legislative Assembly was involved in all the illegal activities by using his
designation. with strong support of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 to 9
I
planned {o cheat the container transporters with an intention {o wrongful gain
and started three associations in the month of August, 2021 and ma-intained
offices in the vacant place of Nadavala S`ekhar. They increased transport
charges with their own interest and issued orders to the owners'of the
containers. In continuation of this practice, on ll.04.2022, they issued orders
to pay the increased charges on the name of KCPT transport association.
Accused Nos.2 to 9 cheated and collected huge amount from the owners and
issued fake bills and extorted amount from other transport owners. While the
drivers refused to pay the charges, the accused threatened them with dire
consequences. Th'ey started illegal business and collapsed the system with an
intention to gain huge money and degrade the 'honor of Krishnapatnam port.
Hence, the case was registered.
`-`----_>
i
3
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. \
4. Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this
case. The petitioner would abide by any condition to be imposed by this court.
5. Perconfra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
opposed in granting of bail stating that the petitioner has indulged in the
offence highhandedly, there is prima-facie case is made out against the
I
petitioner; some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation
is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available
for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged
to dismiss the bail petition.
6., As seen from the record, it appears that there are disputes in between
two associations, one is, Krishnapatnain Transport Association and the other
is, Krishnapatnam Container Transport Owners Association. The latter one
was old. The Krishnapatnam Transport Association, members three in
number, were induced into Krishnapatnam Container Transport Owners
Association. The alleged transactions occurred in between 2021-2023. Even
as per the case of the prosecution, it is the incident originatec] in the year
2O21. F.I.R was lodged on 07.06.2025. The main accused/Accused No.1 was
enlarged on regular bail by the learned lV Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First class, Nellore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.927 of 2025 in
*<---' --=ys
crime No.167 of 2025 of Muthukuru Police Station ob ,1/0.07.2025.
?_ --_ i__X` -`-
4
7. The object of the above mentioned two Associations is to help the
members in getting maximum rates {o their services ass per clause 7 (3) of the
Memorandum, of Association. lt is the allegation of the prosecution that the
petitioner and other accused created their own check post and there was no
check post as per the directions of the Government or Transport Authorities.
8. The allegation is that during the year 2021, when the trailers sent for
transporting of the material from Krishnapa{nam port to various places, they
used to get the freight charges transferred froin the companies to the account
\
of Krishnapatnam logistics at lCICi Bank from thereafter excluding the
commission they used to pay the freight charges to the owners of the trailers
by excluding their commission by showing the fake bills in such a way, the
petitioner and other accused earned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the
owners of the trailers who sent their trailers-through his transport. However,
the de-facto complainant asked the bills to show them to the owners, the
accused and others threatened him with dire consequences and based on the
said report, a case in crime No.167 of 2025 was lodged for the offences
punishable under Sections409, 417, 465, 467,, 471,120(b),109, 506(2), 386
r/w 34 of'[the lPC'. The petitioner, even as per the averments in the report
lodged by the de-facto complainant, is a part-time employee in Krishnapatnam
Logistics as a Data Entry Operator.
9. As observed, though the alleged incident occurred about more than two
years, the de-facto complainant or any person, who is aggrieved by the deeds,
or rather misdeeds of the petitioner or any accused, ought to have reported
t._ ' i-rf
?\\
is
___
5
the same to the police at relevant point ,,f time. The prime allegation is that the
petitioner and other accused extorted freight charges from the lorry owners
I)
and misappropriated them. There is delay of more than two years in lodging
the F.I.R. The reason assigned is that, at that time the petitioner and other
accused were in politically powerful position, therefore, the de-facto
complainant and the other victims could not venture to lodge report with the
police-
10. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Cou'rf in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, at para
Nos.27, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53 (iv) it is held i~ls under:
€l27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a
prima facie case of political bias or mala tides 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
sh_ould 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
irltC!_ C9_nSideratiOn for the Purpose of considering the PIea of anticipatory
bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be
attributed to political bias or vendetta.
45. However, the aforesaid observations cannot be singled oLlt and
COnStrued devoid Of its context. While it is permissible for the courts to
examine the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for the
purpose of ascertaining whether a prima-facie case has been made out
against the accused and the nature or gravity of the allegations, the same
applies only insofar as such pc,lice statements are of witnesses and not
accused persons.
46. Both lndresh Kumar (supra) and Salim Khan (supra) have held
that in deciding the question of grant of bail, it is the statements of witness
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhere has
this Court held that even the police statements of the accused person
12025 SCC Online SC 1157
6
under S_ectipp 161 of the Cr.P.C. must also be looked into at the stage of
grant of anticjpatory or regular bail.
47. This is because a statement of an accused under section 161 of the
Cr...P.C sta_nds on a d'Ifferent footing from a POliCe State'inent Of any Ordinary
witness. Statements of an accused person under section 161 of trfe
Cr.P.C. by virtue of ordinarily being in the form of either an admission or a
c?rfession cappo.i be I_Coked into qua another co-accused, as to say
o_tPeTry_iSe vyOuld _be to ignore the substantive provisions of section(s) 1i,
21, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and the well settled cannons of law of
evidence. However, the aforesaid does not apply, where the statement of
an accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is exculpatory in nature, which
we shall discuss later.
5_0: _ Even where the police statement of an accused person under
sectipn 161 of the Cr.P.C-is neither an admission nor a conf;ssii;,i.i:,-ii-is
exculpatory in nature and not inculpatory, such statements can be looked
into by the courts only for the limited purpose of culling out the stance of the
accused person qua the allegations. An exculpatory police statement of an
accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C which at the same time
irnpl.icates another co- accused, cannot be relied upon, merely because
such slatepr?nt i_s not hit ,by the safeguards and rigours that apply in
respect of inculpatory statements in the form of an admissions or
confessions under the Evidence Act. The fundamental cannon of criminal
jur-ISPrudenCe iS that a Statement Of One accused Person Cannot be used
against another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid
g?neral _prin_ciple is inculpatory confessions, where the accused person in
his cpnfessional statement not only admits his own guilt but also implicates
anot_her pc)-accused. The rationale behind this limited exception as
explained_ !r] Bhuboni Sahu (supra), is that an admission by an accusecl
Pe_rSPn Of his OW_n guilt affords some Sort Of Credib-llity Or Sanction in Support
of the truth of his confession against others as-well as himself.- An
exculpatory statement is an affront to the aforesaid principle. Thus, an
exculpatory statement of an accused person under section 161 of the
F}.r.P.q. can o_nly be looked into for the limited purpose of either culling out
i,Pe stance pf _i_h_p accused pe_rson qua the allegations or for contradicting
the accused, if the accused chooses to be examined as a witness in terrr;s
of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. However, such exculpatory statement insofar
as it implicates another .co-accused person can jn no manner be relied
uppn by the courts as again_st such co-accused as such statements by their
nptu_re cann_ot be tested by cross-examination if such accused berson
decI_ipes to be a vyitness in the trial in.terms of section 315 of the Cr.P.C.,
and because such exculpatory statem`ent has no credibility.
5_?. _ From the above exposition of law, the following emerges:
(iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement,
tPe rigpur pf Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour.
A confessional statement of an accused will only be aclmissible if it -ls not hit
b_y Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of
Section(s) 26, 2P and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively.
ln 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
s_uch_ 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."
_E=i]=
i-I
\ `-t~
\
+I
7
ll. Having seen the entire material on record, Accused No.3 gave an
incriminating statement not only against him but.| also against the present
petitioner who is shown as Accused No.3. AIbeit political bias or malafides by
itself would not suffice to grant anticipatory bail by overlooking other pr,-ma
fac,-e material on record, having seen the entire material on record, there is a
delay of more than two and half years in approaching the police for registration
of a crime. Indeed, there is a dispute in between two societies. They had
alternative better remedy under Section 23df the Andhra Pradesh Societies
i
Registration Act, 2001. After grievance, the contention of the complainant is
expected though he could not venture {o lodge a report with the police, he
could have approached a competent Principal District Judge who is the
designating Court for sorting out the issues of societies under section 23 of
the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Even as per the
|`
judgment of the Honjble Apex Court in PI Kr,-shna Mohan Rec/c/yet,pro,
political bias is one of{he relevant conside JnS While considering the plea of
anticipatory bail. On a careful perusal of .he entire case dairy, as of now,
except the confession of co-accused/Accused No.3, there is no substantial
material available, rather established by the investigating officer against the
petitioner/Accused No.2.
12. The HonJble Apex Court in P. Kr,-shna Mohan RedcJy sapra, held that a
confessing statement of co-accused per se inadmissible and no relevance
whatsoever can be placed on such statement a{ the stage of bail or through
bail I'naSmuCh aS Such confession Statements are rendered by Virtue Of
_//
t~.
gJ
C--~_
ri I =Tij= ffi
-- -`:--'. /
8
section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (for short lthe ActJ).The provision
of Section 30 of fthe ActJ would be of no avail, and ro reliance' can be placed =`a
=sli
on such a statement as-a cause of action to implicate another co-accused.
Further; more importantly, it is to be pointed out that the petitioner is not
partner in Krishnapatnam Logistics as seen from the partnership deed dated
26.07.2024, of course, Krishnapatnam Logistics is with four partners.
13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged
role placed by the petitioner, the nature of allegations levelled against him, this
` A
court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, however, with
following stringent conditions: `
a) ln the event of arrest of the petI-{iOner, the Petitioner Shall be
-enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only), with two sureties each for
the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police
officials;
b) The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation
as and when required;
c) The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or
promise to the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer
concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00
a.m. and 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.
e) The petitioner shall not leave the district limits without the
express permissI-On from the Station House Officer concerned.
f) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the
investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport,
he' shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating
Officer. `=.-.+-.i
\.
` _
\
9
14. Accordingly, the criminal Petition I-s allowed.
. ` t>` SD/-M.SRINIVAS
ASSISTANT ISTRAR
TriUE COPY,,
SEC'TION
For
To,
1. The Principal Dl'strict & Sessions Judge, Nellore.
2. The Station House Officer, Muthukur Police Station, Nellore District.
3. One CC to Sri. C.Subodh, Advocate [OPUC] `
4. Two cos to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAP [OUT]
5. Onesparecopy .
MM
.-
HIGH COURT
Dr.YLR,J
DATED:14/08/2025
ORDER
CRLP.No.8075 of 2025
ALLOWED