Pendency Of Criminal Cases Is Not A Valid Ground To Deny Bail; Accused Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty: AP High Court

“Liberty of the Accused Cannot Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Procedural Formality” – In a crucial ruling the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, granted anticipatory and regular bail to two accused in a politically sensitive land dispute case, invoking key constitutional and procedural safeguards. The Court held that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of immediate threat perception, and lack of prima facie recovery or compelling custodial necessity were decisive in favour of the petitioners.

“Delay of 68 Days in Lodging FIR Erodes the Prosecution’s Case”: Court Finds Complainant’s Version Unreliable in Land Dispute Case

The case arose from Crime No. 144 of 2025 registered at Ulavapadu Police Station, involving allegations against Ajith Reddy (Accused No.1) and Lingareddy Somsshekar Reddy (Accused No.2) of intimidation, trespass, conspiracy, and criminal force, in connection with an ongoing land pooling project. The complainant, Kolluru Mahesh, alleged threats and theft by the accused between 04.07.2025 and 30.08.2025, but filed the FIR only on 10.09.2025.

The Court remarked that such substantial delay without cogent explanation cast serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations:

“The delay of 68 days in filing the FIR from the date of the first incident, and 48 days from the second, weakens the very core of the prosecution’s version. The complainant’s plea of fear is not convincing, especially when he himself has two criminal cases pending against him.”

Citing pending cases against the complainant under Sections 79, 118(1), 324, and 506 of the BNS and IPC, the Court concluded that the fear cited by the complainant was legally unsustainable.

“Right to Bail Cannot Be Defeated by Procedural Prematurity”: Bail Petition Filed Before Arrest Held Maintainable

A unique procedural objection was raised regarding the timing of the bail petition filed by Accused No.1, Ajith Reddy. His regular bail application was filed on 19.09.2025, while the P.T. warrant against him was executed only on 22.09.2025. The Public Prosecutor urged the Court to dismiss the petition as “premature”.

Rejecting this contention, the Court made a strong pronouncement in favour of protecting liberty: “After all, it is a matter of liberty. The technical objection that the bail application was premature is unsustainable. As on the date of this decision, the accused is in judicial custody, and liberty must not be held hostage to procedural sequencing.”

This observation reaffirms that the procedural sanctity of criminal law must always yield to constitutional values when both cannot coexist.

“Accused Cannot Be Denied Bail Merely Due to Prior Criminal Cases”: Presumption of Innocence Reiterated

The prosecution relied heavily on the alleged criminal antecedents of both petitioners, citing four prior cases against Ajith Reddy and one against Somsshekar Reddy. The Court, however, emphasized that bail jurisprudence in India is built on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Quoting from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648, the High Court reiterated:

“Mere pendency of criminal cases is not a valid ground to deny bail. Every accused shall be presumed innocent until guilt is proven in a court of law.”

The Court noted that such blanket references to prior cases without linking them to the present allegations are legally irrelevant.

“Absence of Custodial Necessity and Political Overtones Tilt Balance in Favour of Bail”

The Court found no material on record justifying the need for custodial interrogation of Accused No.2. While the State alleged that there were call data records linking him to co-accused and challenged his alibi, the Court held that such contentions could not justify denial of pre-arrest bail at this stage.

Justice Rao observed: “There is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner. The alibi raised may be tested at trial. At this stage, custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor proportionate, especially in light of the apparent political motivations driving the complaint.”

The Court also noted that the complainant had no legal title over the land in question, further diluting the factual foundation of the FIR.

“Complainant Lacks Legal Ownership Over Disputed Land; Threat Allegations Appear Politically Driven”

One of the most striking findings of the Court was that the complainant had no title or ownership over the land in question, and that the land belonged to his parents. The Court noted that the acquisition process was already underway under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and thus the very premise of coercing the complainant to not transfer land was legally unfounded.

“The de-facto complainant has no lands in his name. Given that the land belonged to his parents and was already under acquisition by the State, his version lacks credibility. Political rivalry appears more plausible than actual criminal motive.”

This observation directly undermines the core of the prosecution's narrative.

Bail Granted to Both Accused in the Interest of Justice and Constitutional Fairness

After a detailed analysis, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed Criminal Petition No. 9677/2025 (pre-arrest bail to Accused No.2) and Criminal Petition No. 9967/2025 (regular bail to Accused No.1) with stringent conditions, including restrictions on movement, weekly police reporting, prohibition on village entry, and non-interference with witnesses. Criminal Petition No. 9669/2025 was dismissed as infructuous since the accused had already been arrested pursuant to a P.T. warrant.

Date of Decision: 26th September 2025