Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kota Sai Kiran vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA P,RADESH AT AMARAV
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUSTz
L>
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8072 OF 2025
Between :
Kota Sai KI-ran, S/o. Venka{eswarlu, Aged about 33 years, R/o.
Brahmadevam Village, Muthukur MandaI, SPSR Nellore District. (A-9)
Petitioner/Accused No,A9
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi.
Respondent
Petition under Section 482 of BNSS., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.A9 on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.167/2025 on the file of Muthukur Police Station, dated 07.06.2025 under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471, 120(b), 109, 506(2)I 386 r/w 34 lPC.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri. c SUBODH, Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent;
The Court made the following ORDER:
2
The Court made the following ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under .tSection 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS]) by the petitioner for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.167 of 2025 of Muttukur Police Station, -Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore 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 [the 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 'A.ssembly was involved in all the illegal activities by using his designation. With strong support of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 to 9 planned to cheat the container transporters with an intention to wrongful gain and started three associations in the month of August, 2021 and maintained offices in the vacant place of Nadavala Sekhar. They increased transport charges with their own interest and issued orders -to the owners of the containers. ln 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 {o 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. They started illegal business and collapsed the system .with an intention tot gain huge money and degrade the honor of Krishnapatnam port. Hence, the case was registered.
r_+I-.==€_.---.
LI_J_
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. Per cot,ira, 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 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, Krishnapa{nam 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 pr`osecution, it is the incident originated in the year 2021. 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 Crime No.167 of 2025 of Muthukuru Police Station on 10.07.2025.
\®_3 _-__tl 4
7. The object of the above mentioned two Associations is to help the members in getting maximum rates to their services \ as pert clause 7 (3) of the Memorandum of Association. It 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 from the companies to the account of krishnapatnam logistics at lclcl 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 IPC'. 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, I,hough 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 `--, _ -. _==\ `\ -
\* 5 the same to the police a{ relevant point of time. The prime allegation is that the petitioner and other accused extorted freight cha[ges from the lorry owners and misappropriated them. There is delay of more than two years in lodgl'ng the F.I.R. The reason assigned is that, at that time the petitl-oner 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 js apposite to refer the judgment of the HonJble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, at para Nos.27, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53 (iv) it is held as under.I £l_27.__ _ rTo.some extent, !pe petitioners could be said to have made out a p_r,i,E:a_:^fSP-lei_Ca_:3 _Pf PPl.iti.Gal. bias. o! mala tides but -{h;;--dry i{::Ii i-;-n:i s:F!c^i.:^nlt~ i_?_ g_r?!I . aptipi,patpry b.ail overlooking th;--5ih6;r -;;;a'vf=:;i T_a.t_e_ri_P_ls_ gr reco!q.. Politic_a_I v_endetta or bias if -any is ohe--of'-thi -;elstJ::;i c^oLn_:i.I_pr€_tI!O_nS WP!lp cpnsic!er!ng the plea of antiofpatori-b-;il.---ih';I:i;ri-s s^hfo^u!!:^!s:tp_prp _tPi|p_g_ !n rind,, inore barficu_Ia!ly, wiriii -i6n5i-igri;'d-trf;;;=a ?.f.L3!}_iciP_?lOry Ppil tPaf wPen .two groups of riviil politic-al -ia-rii5:' oa;6' vatr;:r w^I.1!C^h_A.TS¥__ L#Jt!T_afel,y leeq fo -Iitidations, m'ore--;-=rfi-a-Jlir-I;' -c;i`;iynu:I P:P_?Pcu{i?n-S.there iS bC!ynd tO be SOrile element of po'Iitical bia;6r ;;;Jii= iln_y_o!¥ed in the .sam.p.. However, political vendetta 'by -itS6ifi:-n5i ;ua#J:nut fp:_t!=| g_r2nf _Pf1.an.tiCiPatPry ba-Il-. TPe courts should ;6{ -i;:I i;6iT;i;'vtir6 a_s_Pe?I, Pf POlitiC.al V_enqetta and ignore the other malta;i-ai: -i;---r-e;i;rvd c^o^:sPt:u^tip9._P.=Pr_iT,a facie ,Pase aS drlege_d by the State. -liis-;nI; -vili;;-t'rfe c_o_uJrtLi:_C_P_n_v_inP,ed, rr'ore then Prima fiCie trial the allegati;nS--air: -i;i-;6I:;s ?_n+d_cTOhn^SiFr:`rs:!tpr inhta3, b_a_:_e!€_:_s:_i,Pat tPe?purf may bring_ :!o+rLt_h5._E¥_rfose offinto the elemerith;
c,oPSidering -;i-pdrlit;gil 'j;;i:tit-a ;ld;;-;i--a-n{ii'iri:fy b_3!l_.:!3_,f!-IyOIity,.in fP9 entiri Ca_Se. that the court miy'i;ark i;i:-:'irdru;Jvtle attributed to political bias or vendetta.
4^5^-__I_..PoJW_:_yP_r:_,th? .Pforeseid , oP_s.pp ations cannot be singled out and c_?P_s_t_r.u_edudevPiq of its COnteXt. While it is permissible io-;otrf; ;;;rt:''tuo e_:€_r!p? th,e staterppts recorded under section 161 of th6 6;.-p.6:-i;;ti:e P_u_:PPsP ,Pf ascertaiPing+_Whether a pr-Ima-faCie Case has b;i-n-i;;J= -;;i a^g_a_i:_st_ tP?,_???yspd and the, naty_re-or gravity of thi aliiigit;dr;i,I i'rf;-s;%= a_p_p_Ii€_s_ _pply insofar as such police stitemints are -of-fiit-ni:-s'e: --a;d-I;:i accused persons.
fL6:Iin:._d_eci,Ping
that, Pst_P_,:I.:_d!,Ssh Kup'ardf(5uPra)
.tPp q!estio_n and
g-rant of Salim
bail, it is Khan (supra) have
the sta{irii;-{s held
-off-;it;::s
y,nPer~Sec.tipn .1.6!. of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. iroirh-;;6'-rigs this Court held that even the police statements of the accus=-d--ie;:-din 12025 SCC On,ine SC 1157 e.__,.---.3
-. -_i
-- -,--...--r: I 6 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. must also be looked into at the stage of grant of anticipatory or regular bail.
47. This is because a statement of an accused under section 161 of the Cr_.P.C stands on a different footing from a police stat5ment of any ordinary witness. Statements of an accused person under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by virtue of ordinarily being in the form of either an admission or a confession cannot be looked into qua another co~accused, as to say otherwise would be to ignore the substantive provisions of Section(s) 17, 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.
50. Even where the police statement of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is neither an admission nor a confession, i.e., it is exculpatory jn n.ature and not inculpatory, such statements can be looked
-Into by the COurfS Only for the limited Purpose Of Culling out the stance of the accused person ql!a the allegations. An exculpatory police statement of an accused person u`nder secti-on 161 of the C;.P.C-vI;hiCh at the Same time `implicates another co- accused, cannot be relied upon, merely because such statement is 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 jurisprudence is that a statement of one accused person cannot be used against another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid general principle is inculpatory confessions, where the accused person in his confessional statement not only ?dmits his own guilt but also implicates another co-accused. The rationale behind this limited exception as explained in Bhubonj Sahu (supra), is that an admission by an accused pe_rspn of his own guilt affords some.sort of credibility 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 C.r.P.C. can only be looked into for the limited purpose of either culling out tPe stance pf the accused person qua the allegations or for contradicting the accused, if the accused chooses to be examined as a witness in terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. However, such exculpatory statement insofar as it implicates another co-accused person can in no manner be relied upon by the courts as against such co-accused as such statements by their nature cannot be tested by cross-examination if such accused person declines to be a witness in the tr®Ial in terms Of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., and because such exculpatory statement has no credibiI®Ity.
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 w-Ith the Provisions Of Section(s) 26, 28 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."
7ll. Having seen the entire material on record, Accused No.3 gave an incriminating statement not only against him but also against the present J> petitioner who is shown as Accused No.3. Albeit political bias or malafides by itself would not suffice to grant anticipatory bail by overlooking other pr,-ma rae,'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 23-of the Andhra Pradesh Societies \ Registration Act, 2001. After grievance, the contention of the complainan{ is expected though he could not venture to 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 J-udgment Of the HonJble Apex Court in P. Kr,-shna Mohan RecJc/ysL,Pro, political bias is One Of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. On a careful perusal of the 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. Krishna Mohan Rec/c/y supra, held that a confessing statement of co-accused per se inadmissible and no relevance whatsoever can be placed on such statement at the stage of bail or through bail inasmuch as such confession statements are/rendered by virtue of c-3ri2d:dZ±fi 8 section 25 of the 'lndian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short fthe ActJ).The provision of Section 30 of tthe Act] would be of no avail, and .,`no reliance can be placed 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, Krishnapa{nam 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 court\ deems it fit to grant pre-arr^est bail to the petitioner, however, with following stringent conditions:
a) In the event of arrest of the petitioner, 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 {o the sati'sfaction 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 petl-tioner 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 permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not h-ave a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
S-.s '± • 9
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Peti'tion is allowed.
.I SD/-M.SRINIVAS
ASSISTANT ISTRAR
cs-- //TRUE`COPY// SECTION OFFICER
Tol
1. The Station House Officer, Muthukur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.
2. One CC to Sri. C SUBODH, Advocate .[OPUC]
3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,-High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. [OUT]
4. One spare copy JSS i J> +I HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:14/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8072 of 2025 ALLOWED