Explicit Averments Are Sufficient to Establish Knowledge: Supreme Court Restores Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act MACT | Just Compensation Must Factor in Loss of Dependency, Future Prospects, and Emotional Plight of Survivors: Supreme Court Compensation Must Reflect Justice, Not Delays—Court Shifts Market Valuation to 2019: Supreme Court Orders Compensation Recalculated for Land Acquired in 2003 Child’s Welfare Takes Precedence Over Parental Disputes: Supreme Court Modifies Interim Visitation Arrangement Settlement Cannot Justify Quashing Criminal Proceedings in Economic Offenses: Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Higher Compensation for Land Acquired in Mewat: High Court Erred in Undervaluation Non-Alienability of Assigned Lands is a Non-Negotiable Legal Principle: Supreme Court of India Fraudulent Claims Cannot Prevail: Courts Must Deny Relief to Litigants with Unclean Hands: Supreme Court Non-Alienability of Assigned Lands is Fundamental to Public Policy: Supreme Court on the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act, 1977 MCD Authorized to Initiate Tariff Adoption Under Section 63 Electricity Act: Supreme Court Reinstates Delhi Waste-to-Energy Project Unexplained Delays and Contradictions in Evidence Lead to Acquittal: Telangana High Court No Mens Rea or Loss to State Exchequer: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR in Cartage Policy Case Bar Councils cannot impose additional charges contrary to Supreme Court directives: Kerala HC Investigation is not theatrics; it must serve justice with coherence and truth: J&K HC Quashes FIRs in a Case of Alleged Legal System Exploitation Acquittal in Criminal Case Does Not Affect Disciplinary Proceedings or Forfeiture of Gratuity: Gujarat High Court Delhi High Court Restores Wife’s Right to Cross-Examination, Calls for Sensitivity in Matrimonial Cases Order 6 Rule 17 | Subsequent Events Can Justify Amendment of Pleadings Even After Trial: Calcutta High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Triable Issues Arising From Contradictory Sale Deeds Demand Full Adjudication Through Trial: Bombay High Court Mere Allegations Won't Suffice: AP High Court Orders Government to Pay Contractor, Reduces Interest on Recovery Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Allahabad High Court Acquits Appellant in Circumstantial Evidence-Based Murder Case No Evidence, No Resumption: Andhra High Court Confirms Injunction Protecting Plaintiffs’ Possession of Lands Desertion and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, sustained for over two decades, constitute mental cruelty: Allahabad High Court Dissolves 34-Year-Old Marriage Acquittal in Criminal Case Must Prompt Review of Dismissal: Telangana High Court There Must Be an Intention to Provoke or Drive the Victim to Commit Suicide: High Court Discharges Accused in Abetment of Suicide Case Plaintiffs' Claim of Private Ownership Over Public Road Fails: Balance of Convenience Favors Defendants, Rules Bombay High Court No Prima Facie Case Against Petitioners: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR on Unauthorized Construction Investigation Delayed; Fundamental Right to Travel Cannot Be Curtailed Without Justification: Delhi High Court Upholds Suspension of LOC Minority Members Cannot Stall Redevelopment: Gujarat High Court Upholds Majority Consent in Nidhi Apartment Case” Sufficient Proof of Security Ownership is Essential: Kerala High Court in Partition Suit Madras High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against Political Leader Over YouTube Remarks 'Employers Cannot Unilaterally Alter Employment Terms: Punjab And Haryana High Court Suspicious Circumstances Invalidated Unregistered Will in Partition Dispute: Supreme Court Consent from State Not Required for Investigation of Offenses Under Central Acts Against Central Government Employees: Supreme Court Vague Allegations Cannot Justify Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Foreign National Strict Proof Not Required in Accident Claims; Preponderance of Probability Is Sufficient: Supreme Court Leaseholders of Shamlat Deh Lands Are Not Entitled to Ownership; Eviction Orders Upheld: Supreme Court Environmental and Energy Laws Must Be Harmonized to Tackle Waste Challenges: Supreme Court Vague Allegations Unsupported by Evidence Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Sections 354 and 506 IPC Acquittal in Primary Offence Nullifies Proclaimed Offender Status and Section 174A IPC Proceedings: Supreme Court Merits of the Case Should Not Be Prejudged at Bail Stage: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Bail Order in MCOCA Case Quashing | Cognizance Without Compliance to Section 195 CrPC Vitiates Entire Proceedings: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

Physical Disability and Absence of Direct Involvement Key in Granting Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on the 10th of May, 2024, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to Ramachandra Reddy, also known as Gaddam, who was implicated in a criminal conspiracy case. The decision, presided over by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, emphasized the petitioner’s physical disability and the lack of direct participation in the alleged crime as crucial factors for the decision.

The court dealt with the application of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which pertains to the granting of anticipatory bail. The petitioner, accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including conspiracy to commit murder, argued for bail primarily on the grounds of his severe physical disability and the unsubstantiated nature of his involvement in the actual act of violence.

On March 11, 2023, an assault took place near Saibaba Temple, Anantapuramu. It was alleged that the petitioner, along with others, conspired to murder the victim. The assailants, who are still unidentified, were accused of attacking the victim with sharp weapons and fleeing the scene. The key issue was whether the petitioner, with a 90% disability affecting his mobility and grip, could realistically partake in the commission of the crime, and whether his alleged conspiratorial role was substantiated by sufficient evidence.

The court carefully examined the nuances of the petitioner’s involvement and the credibility of the evidence against him. Key points from the court’s observations include:

Physical Disability: Justice Rao highlighted, “Considering the nature of disability of the petitioner, it may not be possible for him to interfere with the investigation.” This played a significant role in the decision to grant bail.

Investigative Oversights: The court noted errors in the investigation process, particularly in the remand report where unsubstantiated claims about the petitioner’s involvement were initially recorded.

Lack of Direct Involvement: It was emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting the petitioner’s direct involvement in the assault, marking a critical distinction in the case.

Decision Justice Rao concluded to grant anticipatory bail to Ramachandra Reddy on specific conditions: surrendering within two weeks, executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of the same amount, and cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

Date of Decision: 10th May 2024

Ramachandra Reddy @ Gaddam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Similar News