Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR

"Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a notable order dated June 19, 2026, held that the mere existence of multiple criminal antecedents against an accused is not a sufficient ground to deny bail.

A single-judge bench of Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed that while the gravity of the offense is a factor, the court must also consider the presumption of innocence and procedural delays. The court granted bail to a 68-year-old man accused of abduction and extortion, noting a substantial three-year delay in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).

The case pertains to an incident alleged to have occurred on December 16, 2023, involving the abduction and physical assault of the de-facto complainant, Duvvuru Rakesh Reddy. It was alleged that the petitioner (Accused No. 1) along with other associates abducted the complainant in a car and autos, confined him at the petitioner's house, and subjected him to extortion and criminal intimidation. Although the incident occurred in late 2023, the police report was only lodged on April 9, 2026, leading to the petitioner's arrest on April 20, 2026.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner could be enlarged on bail despite having sixteen pending criminal cases against him. The court was also called upon to determine the impact of an unexplained three-year delay in setting the criminal law into motion on the petitioner's right to liberty under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The court began by examining the timeline of the investigation and the specific allegations leveled against the petitioner. While the prosecution highlighted the gravity of the charges, including kidnapping for murder and extortion, the bench noted that the criminal law was set into motion only after a significant lapse of time.

Court Notes Substantial Delay In Setting Criminal Law Into Motion

Justice Rao observed that as per the record, the alleged incident took place in December 2023, yet the formal complaint was only lodged in April 2026. The court found that this unexplained delay of more than three years created a significant gap in the prosecution's narrative, which weighed in favor of the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail.

Presumption Of Innocence And Judicial Custody Duration

The court emphasized that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for 60 days following the execution of a P.T. warrant. It was further noted that a substantial portion of the investigation had already been completed, with six official witnesses already examined by the investigating agency. The bench reiterated the fundamental principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Not An Absolute Bar To Bail

Addressing the prosecution's primary objection regarding the sixteen pending cases against the petitioner, the court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The bench noted that while adverse antecedents are a consideration, they do not create an absolute bar to the grant of bail if other circumstances, such as the stage of investigation and the likelihood of the accused fleeing, are addressed.

"Mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail."

The court observed that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Pellakur Mandal in the Tirupati District with a fixed abode. Given this, the bench concluded that the risk of the petitioner evading the process of law could be mitigated by imposing stringent conditions rather than continuing his incarceration.

Applicability Of BNSS Over CrPC For Bail Applications

The court processed the application under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which have replaced the corresponding provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court found that the petitioner's continued detention was no longer necessary for the purpose of investigation, especially since the primary witnesses recorded so far were official witnesses.

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail upon the execution of a bond for Rs. 20,000 with two sureties. The court imposed several conditions, including a requirement to surrender his passport and report to the Station House Officer every Saturday. The ruling reinforces the judicial stance that procedural lapses like FIR delays and the doctrine of presumption of innocence must be balanced against an accused's criminal history during bail hearings.

Date of Decision: 19 June 2026