Self-Help Measures Cannot Override Supreme Court Possession Orders: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Partial Anticipatory Bail Amidst Cross Criminal Allegations After Protracted Property Litigation

“Criminal Antecedents and Use of Antisocial Elements Tip Scales Against Pre-Arrest Bail”: Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered a significant verdict in a series of anticipatory bail petitions arising out of cross criminal cases following a fiercely contested property dispute. In a well-reasoned order passed by Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma in Criminal Petition Nos. 5730, 5860, and 5861 of 2025, the Court, applying the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) 5 SCC 1, granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners while denying pre-arrest bail to the principal accused citing prior criminal conduct, incriminating witness statements, and serious allegations involving engagement of antisocial elements.

The case stems from a civil property dispute between Santhi Ashramam and the Gajula family, which had already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through a series of orders culminating in SLP No. 27400 of 2023. Despite the Supreme Court recording possession delivery to the Ashramam party, fresh criminal complaints emerged, accusing each other of violent attempts to reclaim property by deploying antisocial elements and "supari" killings.

The High Court’s ruling stands out for emphasizing respect towards finality of Supreme Court orders, drawing a line between genuine apprehensions of arrest and misuse of anticipatory bail in cases where custodial interrogation is warranted due to prima facie material of criminality.

Two crimes, Cr.No.244/2025 and Cr.No.245/2025, were registered at Muvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Cr.No.244/2025 was filed by Santhi Ashramam members, alleging violent trespass attempts post possession delivery, while Cr.No.245/2025 was a counterblast by the Gajula family, claiming incomplete possession and trespass by Ashramam representatives.

Notably, the possession was delivered under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court, with its orders dated 14.12.2023, 21.02.2025, and 28.02.2025 expressly recording that “possession has been handed over in terms of the decree,” leaving any disputes over structures to be addressed before executing courts.

Framing the core issues, Justice Sarma posed a pointed legal inquiry:

“Whether in the backdrop of Supreme Court’s orders and cross allegations of criminal trespass, the grant of anticipatory bail is warranted, especially where prima facie indications of criminal antecedents and misuse of force exist.”

The Court dissected the claims of both groups with precision, noting that the Ashramam party had the advantage of possession affirmed by the apex court, while the Gajula family appeared to be raising contentions of part possession after conceding in earlier contempt proceedings.

Granting anticipatory bail to Ravi Prasad Kadiyala (A1 in Cr.P.5730/2025) and Gajula Goutham (A14 in Cr.P.5860/2025), the Court made the following pivotal remark:

“The necessity of custodial interrogation is outweighed by the legal presumption arising from Supreme Court’s conclusive possession orders… The gravity of accusations, absent specific overt acts, does not prima facie warrant custodial detention.”

However, with respect to Gajula Siddhartha (A1 in Cr.P.5861/2025), Justice Sarma took a starkly different view:

“The involvement of Siddhartha is reinforced by confession statements of co-accused implicating him in engaging rowdy elements through paid supari. The existence of prior criminal cases against him diminishes his claim to anticipatory bail and necessitates custodial interrogation to unravel the deeper conspiracy.”

Highlighting the underlying misuse of criminal law to perpetuate property conflicts, the Court warned against "self-help tactics," observing:

“Civil possession delivered through court orders cannot be reversed through extrajudicial means involving criminal intimidation and illegal force… Anticipatory bail cannot be extended as a shield where prima facie criminality surfaces, especially when serious offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are invoked.”

The Court’s Directions

• Pre-arrest bail was granted to A1 in Cr.No.245/2025 and A14 in Cr.No.244/2025, subject to strict conditions including weekly police reporting, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and travel restrictions.

• The bail petition of A1 in Cr.No.244/2025 was rejected, reiterating the need for custodial interrogation.

“Granting bail mechanically where criminal antecedents exist would send the wrong signal and undermine the sanctity of Supreme Court’s orders.”

This ruling emerges as a textbook exposition on the balancing act involved in anticipatory bail jurisprudence, especially in the fraught domain of property disputes escalating into criminal allegations. The High Court’s order reinforces two legal certainties: finality of Supreme Court decrees in civil litigation cannot be unsettled through unlawful means, and anticipatory bail remains a judicial discretion conditioned by the applicant’s antecedents, nature of allegations, and the need for fair investigation.

Date of Decision: 18 July 2025