Once Investigation Is Complete and Co-Accused Is on Bail, Continued Incarceration Is Unjustified: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Alleged Cyanide Murder Case

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a pivotal ruling under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), granted regular bail to Machanuru Gangi Reddy (Accused No. 2) in a murder case that alleged the killing of a man by poisoning his alcohol with cyanide. The Court held that the conclusion of investigation and parity with the co-accused—who had already been released on bail—constituted a "significant change in circumstance" justifying the grant of bail, reversing its earlier stance of denial.

“This Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail,” said Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, “since the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The question of tampering with evidence does not arise.”

“Detailed Examination of Confession Not Warranted at Bail Stage” – Court Cautions Against Premature Evaluation of Evidence

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner conspired with Accused No.1 to murder the deceased after he allegedly misbehaved with A-1’s wife. According to the FIR, both accused had allegedly approached the Village Revenue Officer and confessed to killing the deceased by lacing his alcohol with cyanide. Acting on this, the police altered the offence to Sections 103(1), 61(2), and 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, invoking charges of conspiracy and homicide.

However, the Court observed that the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession at the stage of bail could not be weighed in detail. “At the stage of bail, a detailed appreciation of the veracity of such extra-judicial confessions is not warranted,” the Judge remarked, reiterating the principle that bail hearings are not trials in miniature.

A Poison Plot Allegedly Born Out of Personal Vendetta

The case originated from a complaint filed by the wife of the deceased, who claimed that her husband was found motionless at the threshing floor and declared dead upon arrival at the hospital. Initially registered under Section 194 of the BNSS, the case took a dramatic turn when the local Village Revenue Officer filed a report claiming that both accused had voluntarily confessed to the murder, citing the deceased's misconduct towards women as the motive.

The police then altered the offence to include serious charges of murder by conspiracy and administration of poison, as defined under the BNS.

“Bail Refused Earlier Due to Ongoing Investigation – Fresh Application Must Be Judged in Light of Changed Facts”

The petitioner had previously sought bail in Criminal Petition No.11645 of 2025, which was dismissed on December 12, 2025, due to the investigation being at a critical stage. However, in the present application, the petitioner highlighted that the charge sheet had now been filed and the prime accused (A-1) had already been released on bail by the Trial Court.

Citing these developments, the petitioner’s counsel, Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, argued that the continued detention of A-2 served no meaningful purpose and violated the principle of parity.

The Court accepted this line of argument and noted, “Since there is a change of circumstances from the date of earlier bail application… and A-1 was already released on bail by the Trial Court, the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise.”

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, confirmed the bail status of A-1 and submitted that appropriate orders may be passed by the Court.

“Liberty Cannot Be Denied Merely on the Weight of Allegations When Trial Is Yet to Begin” – Conditions Imposed to Safeguard Justice

Though granting bail, the Court was conscious of the need to preserve the sanctity of the trial. Accordingly, it imposed stringent conditions including weekly reporting to the police, surrender of passport, and prohibition on speaking about the case on social media or influencing witnesses.

The Court emphasized, “The liberty of the accused must be balanced with the integrity of the investigation and the interests of justice. Appropriate safeguards must be in place to ensure that the trial proceeds without hindrance.”

Court Reaffirms Bail Principles Under New Criminal Codes

This judgment stands as a crucial reiteration of the evolving bail jurisprudence under India’s restructured criminal laws. It affirms that once the investigative process is over, and where co-accused are already out on bail, continued incarceration may amount to pre-trial punishment—something the law resolutely frowns upon.

By emphasizing that “parity with co-accused” and “change in circumstance” remain valid and compelling grounds for bail, the Court’s decision reinforces procedural fairness and safeguards the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Date of Decision: 27 January 2026