Grant of Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely on Allegations; Investigation Is Nearing Completion: Andhra Pradesh High Court

05 March 2025 6:10 PM

By: Deepak Kumar

Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to Yerra Ganesh @ Ganji, an accused in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case, Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2025, was heard by Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, who set aside the trial court’s rejection of bail and ordered the release of the appellant, subject to conditions.
The prosecution alleged that on January 5, 2024, at around 6:40 PM, the accused, including Yerra Ganesh, obstructed the car of the de facto complainant’s husband and assaulted him. According to the FIR, the accused dragged the victim from his vehicle, beat him with a beer bottle on his forehead, and inflicted further blows with hands and legs, causing bleeding injuries. The prosecution further stated that when the victim ran towards his house, the accused pursued him and threatened to kill him. When the de facto complainant and her mother-in-law attempted to intervene, they too were allegedly assaulted and abused by referring to their caste.
The counsel for the appellant, Duggirala Subash, contended that the case was fabricated with false allegations. He argued that the complainant’s husband had a history of criminal activities and that the complaint was an attempt to falsely implicate the appellant. It was further submitted that: “The appellant has been in judicial custody since January 11, 2025, and the material part of the investigation has already been completed. Accused No.4 has already been granted bail, and hence, the appellant deserves the same relief.”
The defense also assured the Court that the appellant was willing to comply with any conditions imposed.
The prosecution, represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor K. Priyanka Lakshmi, strongly opposed the bail application. The State argued that: “The appellant has criminal antecedents and releasing him on bail at this stage could jeopardize the investigation.”
The trial court had earlier denied bail on February 1, 2025, citing the pendency of the investigation and the seriousness of the allegations.
Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, after considering the arguments, ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that: “A bare perusal of the wound certificate of the injured would disclose that the injury sustained by him in the alleged incident is a minor abrasion. It is not the stage to decide the culpability of the Appellant/Accused in the commission of the alleged offenses, which requires examination at full length of trial.”
The Court further observed that since the material part of the investigation was completed and the appellant had been in custody for nearly two months, the risk of tampering with evidence did not arise. It held that:
“In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Appellant on bail. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this appeal are with regard to granting bail but not on the merits of the case.”
Granting bail, the Court imposed the following conditions:
“The appellant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the trial court.”
“The appellant shall appear before the concerned Station House Officer three times a week—on every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM—until further orders.”
“The appellant shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.”
“If the appellant violates any of these conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.”
The judgment highlights the importance of balancing personal liberty with the need for effective investigation. While granting bail, the Court ensured stringent conditions to prevent any interference with the judicial process. The ruling affirms that mere allegations and the gravity of the offense cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, especially when the investigation is substantially completed.
With this order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, ensuring that pre-trial detention is not unduly prolonged without justifiable reasons.