Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 867 (AP)

Ravi Prasad Kadiyala v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-07-18

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA

body2025
ORDER : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. Crl.P.Nos.5730, 5860 and 5861 of 2025 The complainant party in Cr.No.244 of 2025 is Santhi Ashramam people and the complainant party in Cr.No.245 of 2025 are from Gajula family. The civil litigation between the parties went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, covered by SLP.No.27400 of 2023. 2. On the allegation against Gajula family people that they attempted to trespass and dispossess the Santhi Ashramam people from the property handed over in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that there was attempt of lives on one K.Raviprasad/informant and others belonging to Santhi Ashramam people, by engaging rowdy elements etc., the case in Cr.No.244 of 2025 is registered. 3. On the allegation against Santhi Ashramam people that they tried to dispossess and eliminate Gajula Goutam/informant and others with the aid of rowdy elements etc., by trespassing into the property, the case in Cr.No.245 of 2025 is registered. Both the Crimes are pertains to Muvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 4. Crl.P.No.5730 of 2025 is filed by the A1 in Crime No.245 of 2025, Crl.P.Nos.5860 and 5861 of 2025 are filed by A14 and A1 respectively, in Crime No.244 of 2025. 5. The case in Crime No.245 of 2025 is registered with the allegation of committing the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 109(1), 61(2), 111(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 6. The case in Crime No.244 of 2025 is registered with the allegation of committing the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 308(5), 109(1), 61(2), and 111(1) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. 7. Upon considering the sequences of registration of the crimes and also overlapping of contentions to some extent, and as the scene of offence in both the cases being the same viz., Santhi Ashramam, M.V.P Colony, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam, these three Criminal Petitions are being considered and disposed of together by way of common orders. 8. The arguments are advanced in all these three cases together for the respective petitioners and by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 9. The de-facto complainant/ informant in Crime No.244 of 2025 has sought impleadment and audience in Crl.M.P.Nos.5860 and 5861 of 2025 and the same was permitted. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases and Sri Neelothpal.G, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 11. 9. The de-facto complainant/ informant in Crime No.244 of 2025 has sought impleadment and audience in Crl.M.P.Nos.5860 and 5861 of 2025 and the same was permitted. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases and Sri Neelothpal.G, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 11. The case of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5730 of 2025, in brief is that, as per the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.27400 of 2023 dated 28.02.2025, the possession of the disputed property was handed over to the Santhi Ashramam people. One Ravi Prasad arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.245 of 2025 is Secretary of the Santhi Ashramam. After 2 ½ decades of legal proceedings between the parties up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court level, the possession of the property was handed over. The property is in an extent of Ac.1.53 in patta No.16, 1.05 Acres in Patta No.17, 1.51 Acres in patta No.18, 2.0 Acres in patta No.34 beside Saint Anns School, Peddawaltair, Beach Road, Vishakapatnam is the subject matter of civil proceedings at various levels, including the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the SLP (Special Leave Petition) stage and the contempt proceedings were closed by Hon’ble Supreme Court after recording the delivery of the possession. But the allegations made now in the complaint are that the Santhi Asharam People including the petitioner/Raviprasad attempted to commit trespass and occupy the property with the aid of rowdy elements. The allegations are false in view of the admitted and clear delivery of the possession of the property. On the other hand, there was an attempt to trespass into the property already delivered, on which a complaint was given, covered by Cr.No.244 of 2025. As a counter blast to the same, the present complaint in Cr.No.245 of 2025 is foisted with false allegations. Therefore, the petitioner deserves grant of pre-arrest bail. 12. [i]. Learned Advocate Sri Sd.Kaleemulla submitted arguments in Crl.P.Nos.5860 of 2025, 5861 of 2025 that he has filed Vakalath for the petitioners with No Objection dated 14.07.2025, of Sri Palla Balu Anil Kumar, and the affidavit of Gajula Gowtham vide USR No.71676 of 2025 is also filed. [ii]. He has further submitted that, the informant in Cr.No.244 of 2025, K.Ravi Prasad was not a party to litigation at any point of time, in the civil proceedings up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [ii]. He has further submitted that, the informant in Cr.No.244 of 2025, K.Ravi Prasad was not a party to litigation at any point of time, in the civil proceedings up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Physical presence of the petitioners vide A1 and A14 at the scene of offence is not stated in the report by informant. The allegations are against the rowdy sheeter said to have acted pursuant to instigation of the petitioners/A1 and A14 are baseless. There are civil litigations in respect of handing over the property, since the petitioners did not yield to the terms of the informant party the case is foisted with false allegations. [iii]. While referring to the affidavit of the party Gajula Goutham, learned counsel for the petitioner/Sri Sd. Kaleemulla would submit that there was miscommunication between the parties and standing counsel at Supreme Court, as to handing over of the possession of the property and even as per the statement made by the informant in FIR vide Cr.No.244 of 2025 part of property was handed over. There is delay of six days in giving the complaint to Police from the date of incident. In fact when there was interference and trespass of the other side, the complaint was lodged vide Cr.No.245 of 2025 by Gajula Goutham, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5861 of 2025, who is arrayed as the Accused No.14 in Cr.No.244 of 2025. 13 [i]. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Executive extended assistance with regard to handing over the possession of the property and photographs were also taken to that extent. Possession was handover on 27.02.2025 at 11.00 a.m., in respect of the property covered by civil dispute between the parties. [ii] In respect of A1 in Cr.No.244 of 2025 there are other cases covered by Cr.No.17 of 2025 dated 11.01.2025 and Cr.No.222 of 2025 dated 13.05.2025 of the same Police Station in connection with same property and he is arrayed as accused along with some other accused. There are clear criminal antecedents against A1. [iii] In respect of both cases, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the complaints received by Police, both parties trying to settle their scores against each other by engaging the rowdy elements by paying supari, to get the property occupied and also to eliminate the other end. [iv] The matter is under investigation. 14. [iii] In respect of both cases, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the complaints received by Police, both parties trying to settle their scores against each other by engaging the rowdy elements by paying supari, to get the property occupied and also to eliminate the other end. [iv] The matter is under investigation. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5730 of 2025 submitted that after delivery of the property through Supreme Court the contemnors are claiming the possession over the property, contra to the undertaking given before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is a matter of record before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This aspect shall be viewed seriously as the same amounts to aggravated form of contempt. In reply for same, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5860 and 5861 of 2025, Sri Sd.Kaleemulla, submitted that the circumstances are explained in the affidavit of party and the stand for the Ashramam people itself is that the total property is not handed over, hence they have to seek the execution through civil Court but not the anti-social means to settle the scores. Answering the same, counsel for the Ashramam people submitted that existence of structures referred in SLP proceedings is in relation to petrol bunk and the same cannot be taken as advantage. 15. Arguments are submitted extensively. 16. Points that arise for determination are:- 1) Whether the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5730 of 2025 viz., A.1 in Cr.No.245 of 2025 is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail? 2) Whether the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5860 of 2025 viz., A.14 in Cr.No.244 of 2025 is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail? 3) Whether the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5861 of 2025 viz., A.1 in Cr.No.244 of 2025 is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail? Analysis and Discussion:- Precedent: 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court, after referring the observations made in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 AIR 1632; 1980 SCR (3) 383; (1980) 2 SCC 565 in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 vide Special Leave Petition in Crime No.7281, 7282 of 2017, dated 29.01.2020, observed that certain parameters shall be kept in view, while dealing with the applications for grant of pre-arrest bail. State of Punjab, 1980 AIR 1632; 1980 SCR (3) 383; (1980) 2 SCC 565 in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 vide Special Leave Petition in Crime No.7281, 7282 of 2017, dated 29.01.2020, observed that certain parameters shall be kept in view, while dealing with the applications for grant of pre-arrest bail. They are as follows:- “(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” Facts relevant:- 18. In Crl.P.No.5730 of 2025 (Crime No.245 of 2025 registered against the Ashramam people), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted copies of the (03) orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.12.2023, 21.02.2025 and 28.02.2025. Relevant portion of orders is as follows: 1. Operative portion of the order dated 14.12.2023 in SLP No.27400 of 2023 reads as follows: “ No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, on the request of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, we grant time to the petitioners to vacate the suit property and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the respondent till 30 th September, 2024 subject to the petitioners furnishing usual undertakings on oath to vacate the suit property. The undertakings to be filed within a period of one month from today. If the undertakings are not filed by all the petitioners within the stipulated time, the decree shall become executable forthwith.” 2. Operative portion of the order dated 21.02.2025 in Conmt.Pet.(c) No.884/2024 in SLP No.27400 of 2023 reads as follows: “Mr.Eugene S Philomene, learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors, on instructions of the alleged contemnors, who are present online, states that the contemnors are willing to immediately handover the possession of the Suit property in terms of the undertakings filed by them and in terms of the order dated 14th December, 2023. We direct the contemnors to handover the possession of the suit property to the petitioner on 27 th February, 2025 (Thursday) at 11.00 a.m.. We make it clear that if the possession is not handed over as undertaken on 27th February, 2025, it will be an aggravated case of contempt. List the Contempt Petition on 28th February, 2025. On an application made by the petitioner to the local Police Station having jurisdiction over the suit property, necessary Police Protection shall be provided to the petitioner at the time of taking over the possession of the Suit property.” 3. Operative portion of the order dated 28.02.2025 in Conmt.Pet.(c) No.884/2024 in SLP No.27400 of 2023 reads as follows: “The stand taken by the alleged contemnors is that they have handed over the possession of the property subject matter of the decree to the petitioner. Operative portion of the order dated 28.02.2025 in Conmt.Pet.(c) No.884/2024 in SLP No.27400 of 2023 reads as follows: “The stand taken by the alleged contemnors is that they have handed over the possession of the property subject matter of the decree to the petitioner. The petitioner wants to dispute the stand by pointing out that there are structures. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to execute the decree which has been confirmed by this Court. The petitioner can always proceed on the statement of the alleged contemnors that the petitioner has been put in possession of the property subject matter of the Special Leave Petition. Subject to what is observed above, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. If the decree has not been fully complied with, the executing Court shall do the needful.” 19. There is no dispute about the scene of offence is part of the subject matter (property) referred in proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 28.02.2025, property was delivered by the contemnors to the Ashramam people. The excuse claimed is that it is only part delivery as per the complaint of the Ashramam people in F.I.R. of Crime No.244 of 2025 and that there is mention about the structures, before the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is a matter of record before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there was delivery of possession of property. Even going by the version of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5860 and 5861 of 2025, that the Ashramam people are claiming only part delivery and not full delivery would suggest that, theory of trespass and forceful occupation or dispossession does not stand for the test of prima facie case as there can be no need logically for trespass as rightly argued. 20. Assertion of the Ashramam people is that to dispossess them from the property delivered, there was an attempt. The assertions of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5860 and 5861 of 2025, is that to occupy the property, there was interference and resorting to illegal measures. 21. As per the report in Crime No.244 of 2025, the date of incident is 17.05.2025 at 18.00hrs and the date of report is 23.05.2025 at 22.00hrs, and the rowdy sheet holder by name Chitti Mamu was engaged, by paying supari to eliminate the informant party and to grab the property. 21. As per the report in Crime No.244 of 2025, the date of incident is 17.05.2025 at 18.00hrs and the date of report is 23.05.2025 at 22.00hrs, and the rowdy sheet holder by name Chitti Mamu was engaged, by paying supari to eliminate the informant party and to grab the property. The gang of said Chitti Mamu i.e., one Uday, Kiran, Prashanth, Sai, Fakeer, Kranthi and others, came trespassed and attempted to break flag of Ashramam and threatened with dire consequences, pelting stones, beer bottles etc.. Since the informant party is afraid of threat to their lives, there was delay in giving a report. 22. As per the report in Cr.No.245 of 2025, date of offence is 14.05.2025 at 13.00 hrs and the report is given by Gajula Gowtham on 23.05.2025 at 22.00hrs. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner/(Ashramam people) in Crl.P.No.5730 of 2025 submitted that in the complaint vide Cr.No.245 of 2025 made against them there is reference to petrol bunk. The structures referred before the Supreme Court are relatable to the petrol bunk and steps for eviction of petrol bunk people, are being separately taken up. Therefore, submissions as to existence of structures cannot be used by the contemnors to create further vexatious litigation. 24. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that both parties have resorted to the self-help measures approaching the antisocial elements viz., rowdy sheeter etc., by paying supari as per the allegations made by them against each other. 25. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in Cr.No.245 of 2025, (04) witnesses were examined and in Cr.No.244 of 2025 (5) witnesses were examined. Accused No.1 in Cr.No.244 of 2025 is having criminal antecedents and two cases are already registered. 26. Further, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that arrested accused in respect of both the crimes, made confession that there was payment of supari to avail assistance of anti-social elements, and the matter is under investigation, therefore, prosecution is opposing prayer in all the applications. 27. The following points are clear from the context narrated above: 1) The informant in Cr.No.244 of 2025 is from Ashramam people. 2) The informant in Cr.No.245 of 2025 is one of the unsuccessful party in SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3) Scene of offence in both cases is the same. 27. The following points are clear from the context narrated above: 1) The informant in Cr.No.244 of 2025 is from Ashramam people. 2) The informant in Cr.No.245 of 2025 is one of the unsuccessful party in SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3) Scene of offence in both cases is the same. 4) Scene of offence is the subject matter of the property referred in civil litigation up to SLP proceedings. 5) The property covered by SLP proceedings was delivered as per the observations and submissions made before the Supreme Court. 6) Delivery of part of the property is the point, the informant in Cr.NO.245 of 2025, relying on to claim that to take the possession of the remaining part there was trespass instead of going civil litigation. 7) The Informant party in Cr.No.244 of 2025 are relying on SLP proceedings contending that the total property was delivered but the voice is changed now, and the submissions as to use of part of the property was contextually made to show how it was put to use particularly putting a photo of Baba and activities of Ashram are taking place. In remaining part there is a petrol bunk etc.. Even in respect of the property, which is in possession of Asramam pursuant to delivery, there was an attempt of trespass. 28. Upon considering all the relevant factors both from factual and legal angle, the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5730 of 2025 [A1 in Cr.No.245 of 2025], who is Secretary of the Ashramam found not objectionable.. Point No.1 is therefore, answered accordingly. 29. With regard to the prayer of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5860 and 5861 of 2025, arrayed as A14 and A1 respectively in Cr.No.244 of 2025, it is relevant to note that their complaint is covered by Crime No.245 of 2025, which is subsequent one. The incident stated by them is dated 14.05.2025 and the date of report is 23.05.2025, whereas the incident referred against them is dated 17.05.2025 in Crime No.244 of 2025. They are contending that there is delay between 17.05.2025 to 23.05.2025, forgetting that there is more delay from their end in giving complaint. 30. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that confession of the accused- Prasanth in the presence of mediators and the statements of one Uday Kiran and Siva Sankar, reflects that Siddhartha/A1 had paid supari to Rowdy Sheeter, including Chitti Mamu. 30. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that confession of the accused- Prasanth in the presence of mediators and the statements of one Uday Kiran and Siva Sankar, reflects that Siddhartha/A1 had paid supari to Rowdy Sheeter, including Chitti Mamu. Therefore, custodial interrogation Siddartha/A1 is necessary for eliciting several other aspects. Upon considering the antecedents like criminal cases pending against A1/petitioner in Crl.P.No.5861 of 2025 and the information allegedly furnished by the other accused with regard to specific involvement of the petitioner/A1, the prayer of the petitioner/A1, in Crime No.244 of 2025 for granting pre-arrest bail, found not convincing in view of the gravity of the allegations. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 31. With regard to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5860 of 2025 [A14 in Cr.No.244 of 2025], Sri Sd.Kaleemulla, learned counsel submitted that the allegations as to the Contempt etc. are separate and the same does not come in the way of granting pre-arrest bail to A14, his presence or role is no where specified in the report enclosed in Cr.No.244 of 2025. Upon considering the submissions and a perusal of the complaint, as specific involvement of the petitioner/ [A14 in Cr.No.244 of 2025], is not referred in the complaint filed against him and as he is the informant in Cr.No.245 of 2025, his prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail is found not objectionable. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 32. In the result, the Criminal Petitions No.5730 of 2025 is allowed, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner/A1 in Cr.No.245 of 2025 is directed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer within fifteen (15) days and on such appearance/surrender or arrest, he is entitled for release on bail, in respect of Cr.No.245 of 2025 on the file of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, which was registered with the allegation of committing offences under Sections 329(3), 109(1), 61(2), 111(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), on the condition of the petitioner/Accused executing bail bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O., Muvvalavanipalem Police Station. ii) The petitioner/A1 and his sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned Police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time. ii) The petitioner/A1 and his sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned Police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time. iii) For the purpose of expediting the investigation process, the Petitioner/Accused is directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., after release on bail on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m for a period of twelve (12) weeks or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation agency, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and he shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc. v) Petitioner shall furnish a copy of his passport to the concerned Police and the Police are at liberty to inform the passport authority about the pendency of the case against the petitioners, if necessary, for taking appropriate action in terms of Passport Act, 1967 against the petitioners. vi) The petitioner shall not leave India, without permission of the concerned Court. 33. The Criminal Petitions No.5860 of 2025 is allowed, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner/A14 in Cr.No.244 of 2025 is directed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer within fifteen (15) days and on such appearance/surrender or arrest, he is entitled for release on bail, in respect of Crime No.244 of 2025 on the file of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, which was registered with the allegation of committing offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 308(5), 109(1), 61(2), and 111(1) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, on the condition of the petitioner/Accused executing bail bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O., Muvvalavanipalem Police Station. ii) The petitioner/A14 and his sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned Police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time. iii) For the purpose of expediting the investigation process, the Petitioner/Accused is directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., after release on bail on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m for a period of twelve (12) weeks or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. iii) For the purpose of expediting the investigation process, the Petitioner/Accused is directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., after release on bail on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m for a period of twelve (12) weeks or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation agency, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and he shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc. v) Petitioner shall furnish a copy of his passport to the concerned Police and the Police are at liberty to inform the passport authority about the pendency of the case against the petitioners, if necessary, for taking appropriate action in terms of Passport Act, 1967 against the petitioners. vi) The petitioner shall not leave India, without permission of the concerned Court. 34. The Criminal Petition No.5861 is dismissed.