(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Sections 13(4) & 14 – Debt Recovery Tribunal – Delay in considering interim application – Protection of possession pending adjudication. Where the petitioner filed S.A. No. 570 of 2025 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, along with I.A. No. 3737 of 2025 seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed under Crl.M.P. No. 209 of 2025 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and where the Tribunal had only directed issuance of notice to the financial institution and posted the matter to 08.10.2025, the petitioner apprehended dispossession by 05.10.2025 as the period stipulated in the notice was expiring. Held: Having regard to the submissions and following the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 7095 of 2025, the respondents were directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the residential flat bearing D.No.36-92-332/5 admeasuring 800 sq. ft., pursuant to notice dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner, till appropriate orders are passed in I.A. No. 3737 of 2025 in S.A. No. 570 of 2025 pending before the DRT, Visakhapatnam. (B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Interim protection – SARFAESI proceedings – Advocate Commissioner’s notice – Maintainability. When possession proceedings were initiated through an Advocate Commissioner and the matter was sub judice before the DRT, the petitioner was entitled to seek protection from coercive steps pending consideration of the interim application. Held: Writ Petition disposed of directing respondents not to dispossess the petitioner till appropriate orders are passed by the DRT in the pending interlocutory application. Result: Writ Petition disposed of – interim protection granted – no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Sections 13(4) & 14 – Debt Recovery Tribunal – Delay in considering interim application – Protection of possession pending adjudication.
Where the petitioner filed S.A. No. 570 of 2025 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, along with I.A. No. 3737 of 2025 seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed under Crl.M.P. No. 209 of 2025 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and where the Tribunal had only directed issuance of notice to the financial institution and posted the matter to 08.10.2025, the petitioner apprehended dispossession by 05.10.2025 as the period stipulated in the notice was expiring.

Held: Having regard to the submissions and following the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 7095 of 2025, the respondents were directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the residential flat bearing D.No.36-92-332/5 admeasuring 800 sq. ft., pursuant to notice dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner, till appropriate orders are passed in I.A. No. 3737 of 2025 in S.A. No. 570 of 2025 pending before the DRT, Visakhapatnam.

(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Interim protection – SARFAESI proceedings – Advocate Commissioner’s notice – Maintainability.
When possession proceedings were initiated through an Advocate Commissioner and the matter was sub judice before the DRT, the petitioner was entitled to seek protection from coercive steps pending consideration of the interim application.

Held: Writ Petition disposed of directing respondents not to dispossess the petitioner till appropriate orders are passed by the DRT in the pending interlocutory application.

Result:
Writ Petition disposed of – interim protection granted – no costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

APHC010531182025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[0]

FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 27155/2025

Between:

1. SRI DEENABHANDU YANDAMURI,, S/O. BHOOLOKA

RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.36-92-299,

JAIBHARATHA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM HIGHWAY

ROAD VISAKHAPATNAM-530008.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. IIFL HOME FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 12,

A-10, 13TH FLOOR, PARINEE CRESCENE, C-38 AND C39, BEHIND MCA, BANDARULANKA COMPLEX,

BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA.

2. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS

REGISTRAR, D.NO- 31-32-54, CHITRALAYA ROAD,

NEAR LEELA MAHAL ROAD, DABA GARDENS

VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate

Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of

Writ of Mandamus or any other writ by declaring the inaction of

the 2ndrespondent in deciding the I.A. No. 3737 of 2025 in SA

2025:APHC:41062

No. 570 of 2025 and the action of the 1st respondent / bank in

making attempts to take physical possession of the mortgaged

properties through the advocate commissioner pending the

proceedings before 2nd respondent as Wholly illegal, arbitrary,

unjust, untenable, contrary of Principles of Natural Justice,

provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 and

rules framed there under besides being violative of Article 14, 21

and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st

respondent to not to take any further coercive steps to take

possession of the mortgaged properties of the petitioner till the

I.A. No. 3737 of 2025 in SA No. 570 of 2025 before the Honble

Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam is decided and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 1st

respondent to not to take any coercive steps including taking

physical possession of the subject property pursuant to notice

dated 23.09.2025, till the I.A. No. 3737 of 2025 in SA No. 570 of

2025 before the 2nd respondent is decided and/or pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.M VENKATA SAI NIKHIL KASHYAP

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

2025:APHC:41062

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 27155/2025

ORDER: (per Honourable Sri Justice T.C.D.Sekhar)

The 2nd respondent in the present writ petition filed

Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2025 on the file of Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Visakhapatnam seeking to appoint Advocate

Commissioner for the purpose of delivery of physical possession

of the schedule property. Pursuant thereto, the trial Court passed

order appointing Advocate Commissioner and thereafter on

23.09.2025, the Advocate Commissioner issued notice either to

clear the debt or vacate the premises within 12 days. Aggrieved

by the same, the Writ Petitioner preferred S.A.No.570 of 2025

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. Along with

the same, he preferred interlocutory application vide I.A.No.3737

of 2025 seeking to stay all further proceedings pursuant to notice

dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

2. The Tribunal by order dated 29.09.2025 directed the

learned Registrar to send notice through registered post to the

respondent Financial Institution while posting the application to

08.10.2025. The respondents are trying to dispossess the

petitioner as the time stipulated in the notice dated 23.09.2025 is

expiring by 05.10.2025 and since the Debt Recovery Tribunal

posted the matter to 08.10.2025, apprehending that the

2025:APHC:41062

possession of the subject property would be taken away by the

respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on order passed

by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7095 of 2025,

where under this Court directed the parties therein to maintain

status quo with regard to possession of the property.

4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and following the order passed by this

Court in W.P.No.7095 of 2025, the present Writ Petition is

disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the

petitioner from residential Flat bearing D.No.36-92-332/5

admeasuring an extent of 800 stf pursuant to notice dated

23.09.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner in

Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2025 on the file of Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, till appropriate orders are passed in

I.A.No.3737 of 2025 in S.A.No.570 of 2025.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_____________________

JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

____________________________

JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

Dt.03.10.2025

Note: Issue CC by today.

 B/o JLV

2025:APHC:41062

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

W.P.No.27155 of 2025

Date: 03.10.2025

JLV

2025:APHC:41062

A. Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Demolition/Dispossession — Requirement of Prior Notice — Principles of Natural Justice — Articles 14, 21 and 300-A — Applicability. Where the petitioners were in long-standing occupation of house sites and dwelling houses in Sy.No. 205/3 of Lankapeta, Bhimavaram Mandal, and the respondent-Municipality and allied authorities proposed to demolish the structures and dispossess them treating the land as belonging to the Irrigation Department (classified as Yanamaduru Murugu Kalava), the High Court held that even assuming the petitioners to be encroachers, they cannot be dispossessed or their houses demolished without issuance of prior show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing. — Held, issuance of notice and consideration of explanation is a mandatory pre-condition before any coercive action; failure thereof would offend the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A. (Paras 7 & 8) B. Land Law — Government Land — Alleged Encroachment — Claim of Assignment Pattas — Necessity of Verification. — Where some petitioners asserted possession based on pattas allegedly issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Court directed that the competent authority must verify whether such pattas were validly issued and whether any rights accrue to the petitioners before proceeding further. (Para 7) C. Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Right to Notice and Hearing — Eviction from Government Property. — Even encroachers are entitled to notice and opportunity to explain before eviction or demolition. Failure to do so renders action arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 7 & 8) D. Practice and Procedure — Writ Petition — Disposal at Admission Stage — Direction to Issue Show-Cause Notice — Interim Protection Continued. — Considering the facts and submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage by directing respondents to issue show-cause notices, consider explanations, and pass speaking orders in accordance with law; until such process is completed, petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the subject property. (Para 8) Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions — No costs.

A. Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Demolition/Dispossession — Requirement of Prior Notice — Principles of Natural Justice — Articles 14, 21 and 300-A — Applicability.

Where the petitioners were in long-standing occupation of house sites and dwelling houses in Sy.No. 205/3 of Lankapeta, Bhimavaram Mandal, and the respondent-Municipality and allied authorities proposed to demolish the structures and dispossess them treating the land as belonging to the Irrigation Department (classified as Yanamaduru Murugu Kalava), the High Court held that even assuming the petitioners to be encroachers, they cannot be dispossessed or their houses demolished without issuance of prior show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing.

— Held, issuance of notice and consideration of explanation is a mandatory pre-condition before any coercive action; failure thereof would offend the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A. (Paras 7 & 8)

B. Land Law — Government Land — Alleged Encroachment — Claim of Assignment Pattas — Necessity of Verification.

— Where some petitioners asserted possession based on pattas allegedly issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Court directed that the competent authority must verify whether such pattas were validly issued and whether any rights accrue to the petitioners before proceeding further. (Para 7)

C. Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Right to Notice and Hearing — Eviction from Government Property.

— Even encroachers are entitled to notice and opportunity to explain before eviction or demolition. Failure to do so renders action arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 7 & 8)

D. Practice and Procedure — Writ Petition — Disposal at Admission Stage — Direction to Issue Show-Cause Notice — Interim Protection Continued.

— Considering the facts and submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage by directing respondents to issue show-cause notices, consider explanations, and pass speaking orders in accordance with law; until such process is completed, petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the subject property. (Para 8)

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions — No costs.

APHC010531032025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3506]

FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 27147/2025

Between:

1. SHAIK DARBAR,, W/O SHAIK ABDUL KARIM, AGED ABOUT 60

YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-2-17/1, WARD-38, LANKAPETA,

BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. THOTHURAMUDI VEERA SWAMY,, S/O PENTAYYA, AGED ABOUT

49YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-2-17/, WARD-38, LANKAPETA,

BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT..

3. ADDANKI NIRMALAPATHI RAJU, , S/O ADDANKI CHINNA ISMAIL,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-2-7, REVENUE WARD-4,

LANKAPETA, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

4. BAMMIDI DURGA, , W/O DURGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YRS, R/O.

D. NO. 4- 2-5, WARD-38, LANKAPETA, BHIMAVARAM, WEST

GODAVARI DISTRICT.

5. VAGIRI MOUNT ZION SYAM PRASAD,, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

R/O. D.NO. 4-2-43, WARD-38, LANKAPETA, BHIMAVARAM, WEST

GODAVARI DISTRICT.

6. B. VIJAYA KUMARI,, W/O. JAMES KENT SAM PRASAD VAGIRI,

R/O. D. NO. 4-2-42/1, WARD-38, LANKAPETA, BHIMAVARAM,

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

7. PILLI RAVI KRAN,, S/O CHITTI MOSES, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

R/O. D. NO. 4-2-9, REVENUE WARD-4, LANKAPETA,

BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

8. PILLI MANI KUMAR, S/O CHITTI MOSES, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

R/O. D. NO. 4-2-9, REVENUE WARD-4, LANKAPETA,

BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

9. MARY RAGEENA SANTHA KUMARI KURELLA,, W/O. SAUL RAJU,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-2-49, WARD-4,

2025:APHC:41068

2

LANKAPETA, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

10. SALLABATHULA RAMANA,, W/O. SALLABATHULA VIJAYA BABU,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. 4-2-2/2, WARD-38, LANKAPETA,

BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

11. MADASU CHINNA APPANA,, S/O. M. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED

ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-2-6, WARD-38, LANKAPETA,

BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OF WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, O/O.

COLLECTORATE, BHIMAVARAM.

3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,

GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

4. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND

DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT, A.P.

5. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

6. BHIMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

TOWN HALL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BHIMAVARAM, A.P. 534201.

7. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION,

SETTIPURA, NIDADAVOLE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DRAIN, AGE DIVISION, O/O. THE

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, BHIMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY,

TOWN HALL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BHIMAVARAM, A.P. 534201.

9. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, O/O. THE

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, BHIMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY,

TOWN HALL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BHIMAVARAM, A.P. 534201.

2025:APHC:41068

3

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased to pass orders, to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly, one

in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents,

more particularly the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and 5 to 9 and its authorities

from initiating steps to dispossess the Petitioners from their dwelling houses

by demolishing the same in S. No. 205/3, situated in Lankapeta,

Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, even without prior written notice and

enquiry, as illegal, unfair, unjustified and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A

of the Constitution of India and the laid principles of natural justice and fair

play, thereby direct the Respondents not to initiate coercive steps of forceful

demolition of the dwelling houses and forceful dispossession of the

Petitioners from their respective properties in S. No. 205/3, Lankapeta,

Bhimavaram in the interest of justice and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

pass interim orders directing the Respondent Authorities, not to initiate any

coercive steps against the Writ Petitioners, thereby direct the Respondents

not to demolish the dwelling houses or dispossess the Petitioners from their

respective properties in S. No. 205/3 of Lankapeta, Bhimavaram, West

Godavari District, pending disposal of the writ, in the interest of justice, and

also to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.ANIL KUMAR DASARI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

2025:APHC:41068

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 27147/2025

Order:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

the following relief/s:-

“…to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the

Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and 5

to 9 and its authorities from initiating steps to dispossess the

Petitioners from their dwelling houses by demolishing the same in

S.No.205/3, situated in Lankapeta,Bhimavaram, West Godavari

District, even without prior written notice and enquiry, as illegal,

unfair, unjustified and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the

Constitution of India and the laid principles of natural justice and fair

play, thereby direct the Respondents not to initiate coercive steps of

forceful demolition of the dwelling houses and forceful

dispossession of the Petitioners from their respective properties in

S.No.205/3,Lankapeta,Bhimavaram in the interest of justice and to

passsuch other order or orders.…”

2. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents

in initiating steps for demolition of the dwelling houses and dispossessing the

petitioners from the respective house properties situated in Sy.No.205/3 of

Lankapeta, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary

and violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

3. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Dasari, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Smt. V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing counsel for Municipalities appearing

for respondent No.6.

4. The petitioners claim to be the occupants of various extents of land in

Sy.No.205/3 of Lankapeta, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District,

2025:APHC:41068

5

formore than six decades, either through their ancestors or by themselves

being in occupation of the said land. They have also constructed residential

houses over the same and the said properties also assessed for property tax

and even provided with electricity. However, now the respondent No.6-

Municipality has resorted to taking steps for demolition of house structures

and also dispossessing them without any prior notice. Some of the petitioners

have traced their right to the property through an Assignment order stated to

have been issued by Mandal Revenue Officer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have

been residing in the houses in aforesaid survey number for a considerable

period of time and that some of them have been issued pattas by Mandal

Revenue Officer.Therefore, even without issuing any prior notice, they cannot

be dispossessedby demolition the existing structures, which is clearly in

violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

6. On the other hand, Smt. V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing counsel

appearing for the respondent No.6-Municipality, submits that the petitioners

are all encroachers and the subject land belongs to Irrigation Department,

which has been classified as YanamaduruMuruguKalava.None of the

assignments which have been placed along with the Writ Petition pertain to

any of the petitioners. Therefore, they cannot assert any right or title to the

said property.

2025:APHC:41068

6

7. The fact remains that the petitioners are presently in occupation of

various extents and have also constructed houses and are living there.Even if

it is to be treated that petitioners are encroachers, still they are entitled to be

issued prior show cause notice before any steps are initiated to either

dispossess or demolition of the structures. That apart, since some the

petitioners claim to have been issued assignmentpattas, even the said aspect

is also required to be examined whether such pattas are validly issued and

whether any rights accrue in favour of the petitioners. Unless aforesaid

exercise is conducted by issuing prior notice to the petitioners, they cannot be

straight away dispossessed from the subject property.

8. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the respect counsels and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice to

dispose of the Writ Petition at the admission stage by directing the

respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioners and call for

explanation before they propose any coercive action against petitioners. Upon

issuance of such show cause notice, the petitioners are permitted to submit

explanation raising all objections and thereafter, the respondents are to pass

appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law. Till such time the

respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject

property.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as

to costs.

2025:APHC:41068

7

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________

JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

Date: 03.10.2025

SNI

2025:APHC:41068

8

2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 27147/2025

Date: 03.10.2025

SNI

2025:APHC:41068

Subject—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Alternative Remedy — Writ Jurisdiction — Invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee Held: Where the contract between the parties contains a specific arbitration clause providing for dispute resolution through arbitration and the petitioner has already invoked arbitration, the proper remedy for securing interim measures lies under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not ordinarily entertain a challenge to invocation of a Performance Bank Guarantee arising out of such contractual terms. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances that the jurisdictional Court was not functioning due to intervening vacations, the High Court granted limited interim protection by directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps for a period of one week to enable the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Key Facts Work Order dated 17.07.2024 awarded to the petitioner for a total value of ₹6,33,63,140/-. Performance Bank Guarantee furnished on 31.07.2024 for ₹19,00,894/-, valid up to 15.10.2025. Respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 25.09.2025 for invocation of the PBG alleging delay. Petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated 01.10.2025 and filed the writ petition seeking to declare the invocation of the PBG as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. Observations The contract provided for dispute resolution by arbitration. The petitioner has already invoked arbitration by notice dated 01.10.2025. A specific remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available for interim protection. Therefore, the petitioner is required to avail such statutory remedy. The Court did not examine merits of the dispute. Considering vacation of the jurisdictional Court, the petitioner was granted one week’s interim protection against coercive steps. Disposition Writ Petition disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the competent Court. Respondents directed not to take coercive steps for one week from the date of order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions dismissed as infructuous. Result: Writ Petition disposed of — liberty granted to seek remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — interim protection for one week.

Subject—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Alternative Remedy — Writ Jurisdiction — Invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee

Held:
Where the contract between the parties contains a specific arbitration clause providing for dispute resolution through arbitration and the petitioner has already invoked arbitration, the proper remedy for securing interim measures lies under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not ordinarily entertain a challenge to invocation of a Performance Bank Guarantee arising out of such contractual terms.

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances that the jurisdictional Court was not functioning due to intervening vacations, the High Court granted limited interim protection by directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps for a period of one week to enable the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Key Facts

• Work Order dated 17.07.2024 awarded to the petitioner for a total value of ₹6,33,63,140/-.

• Performance Bank Guarantee furnished on 31.07.2024 for ₹19,00,894/-, valid up to 15.10.2025.

• Respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 25.09.2025 for invocation of the PBG alleging delay.

• Petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated 01.10.2025 and filed the writ petition seeking to declare the invocation of the PBG as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution.

Observations

• The contract provided for dispute resolution by arbitration.

• The petitioner has already invoked arbitration by notice dated 01.10.2025.

• A specific remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available for interim protection.

• Therefore, the petitioner is required to avail such statutory remedy.

• The Court did not examine merits of the dispute.

• Considering vacation of the jurisdictional Court, the petitioner was granted one week’s interim protection against coercive steps.

Disposition

• Writ Petition disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the competent Court.

• Respondents directed not to take coercive steps for one week from the date of order.

• No costs.

• Miscellaneous petitions dismissed as infructuous.

Result:

Writ Petition disposed of — liberty granted to seek remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — interim protection for one week.

APHC010531232025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[0]

FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 27157/2025

Between:

1. AIR CONTROL AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD, HAVING

ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 63, THE CHAMBERS, NR. GOYAL PALACE,

OPP-GURUDWARA, S.G. HIGHWAY, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD,

GUJARAT - 380054. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING

DIRECTOR, SRI VISHAL DAGA.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY

OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001

2. THE EASTERN NAVAL COMMAND, REPRESENTED BY THE FLAG

OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF 2ND FLOOR NAVAL BASE,

VISAKHAPATNAM - 530014

3. FLEET MAINTENANCE UNIT, REP. BY THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE,

C/O. FLEET MAIL OFFICE, NAVAL DOCKYARD VISHAKAPATNAM -

530014

4. THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KALUPUR CIRCLE BRANCH,

GROUND FLOOR, BSNL BUILDING, OPPOSITE KALUPUR

RAILWAY STATION, KALUPUR, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT - 380002

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in

2025:APHC:41067

the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent

No.3 herein invoking the Performance Bank Guarantee vide PBG Number

000371124000026 dated 31.07.2024, as extended up to 15.10.2025,

amounting to Rs. 19,00, 894/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Eight Hundred and

Ninety Four only), vide Letter No. PC/303/H E/RAN A/24 dated 25.09.2025,

alleging breach of terms and conditions under Work Order bearing No.

PC/303/HE/RANA/24 dated 17.07.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to

the terms and conditions under Work Order bearing No. PC/303/H E/RAN

A/24 dated 17.07.2024 and principles of natural justice, besides being

violative of Articles 14, 19(1)g and 300A of the Constitution of India and/or

pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

pleased direct the Respondents No. 4 herein not to honor the Performance

Bank Guarantee vide PBG Number 000371124000026 dated 31.07.2024, as

extended up to 15.10.2025, amounting to Rs. 19,00,894/- (Rupees Nineteen

Lakh Eight Hundred and Ninety Four only), pursuant to the Letter No.

PC/303/H E/RAN A/24 dated 25.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3

herein and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.K KOUTILYA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

2025:APHC:41067

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 27157/2025

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed assailing the action of respondent No.3

invoking the Performance Bank Guarantee vide PBG number

000371124000026 dated 31.07.2024, which is extended upto 15.10.2025 to

be arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice.

2. The petitioner has entered into the contract with respondent No.3 on

17.07.2024. The same was awarded in pursuance to tender process initiated

by respondent No.3. The total value of work awarded was for Rs.6,33,63,140/-

as per the work order. The petitioner was supposed to complete the same

within the period of six months. The petitioner was also required to furnish the

performance bank guarantee for a value of Rs.19,00,894/- as condition

precedent. The same has been complied by the petitioner on 31.07.2024

which is in force till 15.10.2025. In the process of execution of contract,

respondent No.3 had issued impugned proceeding dated 25.09.2025 for

encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to advance the arguments on

merits of the matter. The contract provided for a specific dispute resolution

mechanism of invoking arbitration, the petitioner had already issued notice

dated 01.10.2025 invoking the arbitration clause under the contract. In as

much as the disputes are agreed to be resolved through arbitration, under the

provisions of Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996, there is a specific remedy

2025:APHC:41067

for securing interim measure by way of Section 9 application. The petitioner is

therefore required to avail such remedy.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 on instructions submitted

that by notice dated 15.09.2025, the contract has been short closed and only

thereafter, the Performance Bank Guarantee was sought to be encashed for

delay in completion of the project.

5. Since, this Court is inclined to relegate the petitioner to prefer remedy of

filing application under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it is not proposing to

examine the merits or otherwise of the respective contentions. In peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, considering that due to intervening

vacations, the jurisdictional Court is not functioning, the writ petition is

disposed of by granting petitioner liberty to avail appropriate remedy. The

respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps in pursuance to the

said proceedings for invocation of Bank Guarantee for a period of one week

from today. In case the petitioner prefers appropriate application before

competent Court, the same shall be considered and disposed of inaccordance

with law without being influence by any of observations made herein. No costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand

dismissed as infructuous.

_______________________

CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J

Dated: 03.10.2025

AG

2025:APHC:41067

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 27157/2025

Dated: 03.10.2025

AG

2025:APHC:41067

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Pre-arrest bail — Grant of — Confessional statement of co-accused — Evidentiary value — Held, confession of co-accused cannot be made the sole basis to implicate another accused. Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 2023 — Sections 7 r/w 8-B(2) — Illegal transportation of liquor — Allegation that Accused No.1 purchased contraband liquor from petitioner/Accused No.2 — Petitioner arrayed as accused solely on the basis of confession of co-accused — No independent material found — Held, confessional statement cannot be relied upon to bring another person into array of accused — Pre-arrest bail justified. Facts: On 24.12.2025, during a vehicle check near Bairupalli Cross, V. Kota Mandal, the police apprehended Accused No.1 transporting 192 tetra packets (17.280 litres) of Johns Original Choice Deluxe Whisky on a motorcycle. The liquor was allegedly purchased from the petitioner/Accused No.2, J. Vasantha Reddy, for illegal sale. Based solely on the confession of Accused No.1, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No.287/2024 of V. Kota Urban Police Station. Held: The Court observed that as per the settled legal position, a confessional statement of one accused cannot form the sole basis to implicate another. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600. Considering the absence of independent material against the petitioner and the settled principle of law, the Court found it a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Pre-arrest bail — Grant of — Confessional statement of co-accused — Evidentiary value — Held, confession of co-accused cannot be made the sole basis to implicate another accused.

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 2023 — Sections 7 r/w 8-B(2) — Illegal transportation of liquor — Allegation that Accused No.1 purchased contraband liquor from petitioner/Accused No.2 — Petitioner arrayed as accused solely on the basis of confession of co-accused — No independent material found — Held, confessional statement cannot be relied upon to bring another person into array of accused — Pre-arrest bail justified.

Facts:

On 24.12.2025, during a vehicle check near Bairupalli Cross, V. Kota Mandal, the police apprehended Accused No.1 transporting 192 tetra packets (17.280 litres) of Johns Original Choice Deluxe Whisky on a motorcycle. The liquor was allegedly purchased from the petitioner/Accused No.2, J. Vasantha Reddy, for illegal sale. Based solely on the confession of Accused No.1, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No.287/2024 of V. Kota Urban Police Station.

Held:

The Court observed that as per the settled legal position, a confessional statement of one accused cannot form the sole basis to implicate another. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600. Considering the absence of independent material against the petitioner and the settled principle of law, the Court found it a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail.

APHC010506072025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3548]

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:9945 of 2025

Between:

J Vasantha Reddy Alias Vasanth Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

2025:APHC:41222

ORDER:

Heard,

Sri Satheesh Kumar Eerla, learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for

the Respondent-State.

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/Accused

No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.287 of

2024 of V. Kota Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the

alleged offences punishable under Sections 7 read with 8-B-2 APPA,

2023.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2025 at about 08.00

A.M., Near Bairupalli Cross, on V. Kota-Pernumbut Road, V. Kota

Mandal, Accused No.1/M.Reddeppa, was caught during a vehicle check

transporting 192 Tetra Packets of 90 ML Johns Original Choice Deluxe

Whisky (17.280 liters, worth Rs.7,680/-) on a motorcycle (Reg.No.KA 03

HH 0677). The Liquor was allegedly purchased from the

petitioner/accused No.2 by name J. Vasantha Reddy, for illegal sale.

The Police arrested the accused No.1 and the contraband along with

motorcycle were seized under a Maharzanama, with one tetra packet

2025:APHC:41222

sealed for chemical analysis. The petitioner/accused No.2 is found

absconding and based on the mediators’ report, the Police registered

the above crime against the accused. Hence the FIR.

3. The entire arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused No.2 based on confession statement of accused

No.1, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and as per the settled

principles of law, the confessional statements cannot be taken into

account. The aforesaid proposition is well settled in the Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu1

,

wherein it has categorically observed that the confessional statements

cannot be a basis to bring the other accused or witnesses on record.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had

advanced his arguments opposing the petition and stated that the

petitioner/accused No.2 shall not be released on bail much less

anticipatory and further argued that whole case is based on the

petitioner/accused No.2 himself.

5. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that

the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner/accused No.2

and also keeping in view the said law the confessional statement cannot

be the basis to bring the other accused or witnesses into frame. Hence,

1

2005 11 SCC 600

2025:APHC:41222

this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused

No.2.

6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following

conditions:

I. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.2

shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to

the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

II. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available

for investigation as and when required;

III. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat,

inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

IV. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the

Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on

every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till

filing of the charge sheet.

V. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of

the District without the express permission from the

Station House Officer concerned.

2025:APHC:41222

VI. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport,

if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does

not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that

effect to the Investigating Officer.

VII. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall co-operate with the

investigation and also attend as and when required by the

investigation agency-State. Any deviation or contravention

in this regard, the Respondent/State is at liberty to arrest

the petitioner/accused No.2.

_______________________

 TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J

Date: 03.10.2025

SRT/KNN

2025:APHC:41222

16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:9945 of 2025

03.10.2025

SRT/KNN

2025:APHC:41222

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 482 — Anticipatory bail — Confessional statement of co-accused — Evidentiary value — Scope of interference under S. 482. Where petitioners (A-10 and A-11) were sought to be implicated solely on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused (A-1 to A-5) recorded by police, held, such confession cannot form the sole basis either to prosecute or to deny bail to another accused. Court must first consider independent evidence adduced by prosecution, and only thereafter may use confession, if any, for limited corroborative assurance. Held, proposition is well-settled that confession of a co-accused made before police has no evidentiary value and cannot be used against another accused. [Followed Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159; Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184; and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600.] Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act — Ss. 7(a), 8(e), 8(b)(ii) — Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1998 — S. 4(c) — Offences — Anticipatory bail — Confession of co-accused — When relief may be granted. On facts, seizure of I.D. arrack and lottery tickets was only from A-1 to A-5; petitioners (A-10 and A-11) were shown as accused solely on co-accused confession. No independent material connected petitioners to seizure or sale. Held, balance of convenience in favour of petitioners; anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions to surrender within ten days, execute personal bond of ₹ 20,000 with two sureties, appear weekly before S.H.O. and cooperate in investigation. Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 30 — Confession of co-accused — Limited use — Principle reaffirmed. Reiterated, court cannot start with confession of co-accused; must first appraise other evidence, and only then look to confession for assurance to conclusion already reached. (Para 4, quoting Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, para 40.) Held: Confessional statement of co-accused before police cannot form the sole basis for prosecution or arrest of another accused — law well-settled by Supreme Court — petitioners shown as accused only on such confession — anticipatory bail granted with conditions.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 482 — Anticipatory bail — Confessional statement of co-accused — Evidentiary value — Scope of interference under S. 482.

Where petitioners (A-10 and A-11) were sought to be implicated solely on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused (A-1 to A-5) recorded by police, held, such confession cannot form the sole basis either to prosecute or to deny bail to another accused. Court must first consider independent evidence adduced by prosecution, and only thereafter may use confession, if any, for limited corroborative assurance.

Held, proposition is well-settled that confession of a co-accused made before police has no evidentiary value and cannot be used against another accused. [Followed Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159; Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184; and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600.]

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act — Ss. 7(a), 8(e), 8(b)(ii) — Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1998 — S. 4(c) — Offences — Anticipatory bail — Confession of co-accused — When relief may be granted.

On facts, seizure of I.D. arrack and lottery tickets was only from A-1 to A-5; petitioners (A-10 and A-11) were shown as accused solely on co-accused confession. No independent material connected petitioners to seizure or sale.

Held, balance of convenience in favour of petitioners; anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions to surrender within ten days, execute personal bond of ₹ 20,000 with two sureties, appear weekly before S.H.O. and cooperate in investigation.

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 30 — Confession of co-accused — Limited use — Principle reaffirmed.

Reiterated, court cannot start with confession of co-accused; must first appraise other evidence, and only then look to confession for assurance to conclusion already reached. (Para 4, quoting Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, para 40.)

Held:

Confessional statement of co-accused before police cannot form the sole basis for prosecution or arrest of another accused — law well-settled by Supreme Court — petitioners shown as accused only on such confession — anticipatory bail granted with conditions.

APHC010510762025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3548]

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10039/2025

Between:

Shaik Baba Fakroddinu Alias Godi Baba

and Others

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.DHEERA KANISHKA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

This Court made the following

2025:APHC:41100

2

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos. 10 and 11 seeking their release on bail in the event of arrest in

Crime No. 326 of 2025 of Kadiri Town Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai

District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 (a) read

with Section 8 (e) and Section 8 (b) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 4 (c) of Andhra Pradesh

Lotteries Act, 1998.

2. Heard,

Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11, and learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Case of the prosecution is that on 13-09-2025 at about 11 a.m.,

near Kutagulla Railway Gate, Kandikunta Narayanamma Colony, Kadiri

Town, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station, along

with his staff and mediators, on credible information, found accused

Nos. 1 to 5 while they were selling I.D. arrack and lottery tickets without

any valid licence or permission. Thereafter, the police seized 16 liters of

I.D. arrack, 47 lottery tickets and five cellphones from their possession,

arrested accused Nos. 1 to 5 and remanded them to judicial custody. It

is the further case of prosecution that accused Nos. 1 to 5 confessed

2025:APHC:41100

3

the involvement of accused Nos. 6 to 10 in the case and accused No.

11 is the person who supplied lottery tickets to accused Nos. 1 to 10.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11

contends that the present petitioners are merely shown as accused

basing on the confessional statements of accused Nos. 1 to 5 which is

contrary to law. This proposition of law is well settled and the learned

counsel submits that the said proposition is reflected in Ground No. 2

which states that confession of a co-accused made before police has no

evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis for prosecution against

another accused. He places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh Vs. State of M.P.1

and Haricharan

Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar2 which were re-affirmed in State (NCT of

Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias afsan guru3

. In the said judgment, the

Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.40 held as under:

“After referring to these decisions, a Constitution

Bench of this Court in Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar

further clarified the legal position thus : (SCR pp. 632-33)

“[1]n dealing with a case against an accused person,

the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused

person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the

prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard

to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is

permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive

assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind

is about to reach on the said other evidence.”

(emphasis supplied)”

1 AIR 1952 SC 159

2 AIR 1964 SC 1184

3 2005 (11) SCC 600

2025:APHC:41100

4

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

vehemently opposed the criminal petition contending that if the

petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, it would be difficult for the

State to procure their presence and proceed with investigation.

6. Though there is substance in the contention of learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, it is also well settled that the law cannot be deviated

which is settled way back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that

confessional statements of the co-accused cannot form a basis to bring

home the guilt of the other accused.

7. This Court, after hearing both sides, feels that balance of

convenience is in favour of the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 and

inclines to grant anticipatory bail to them with certain conditions.

8 The petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 are therefore directed to

surrender before the Station House Officer, Kadiri Town Police Station,

Sri Sathya Sai District, within a period of ten days from today. On such

surrender, the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 are ordered to be

released on bail on their executing each a personal bond for Rs.20,000/-

(Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each

to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Kadiri Town Police

Station. After release, the petitioners-accused Nos. 10 and 11 are

directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Kadiri Town Police

Station, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and

2025:APHC:41100

5

1.00 p.m. till filing of charge sheet. The petitioners-accused Nos. 10

and 11 are also directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and

not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

 _____________________________

Date: 03-10-2025, JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

JSK

2025:APHC:41100

6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10039 OF 2025

DATE: 03RD OCTOBER, 2025

JSK

2025:APHC:41100