Prolonged Custody and Charge Sheet Filing Justify Bail in Case and Counter-Case Dispute: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle of liberty by granting bail to three individuals held in judicial custody for over 80 days, emphasizing that the completion of the investigation and the existence of a counter-case significantly alter the necessity for continued incarceration.

In a single-judge bench proceeding, the Hon'ble Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao adjudicated a petition seeking the enlargement of three accused persons who were embroiled in a legal dispute involving cross-complaints at the Kuppam Urban Police Station.

Court Observations on Period of Incarceration

The petitioners were arrested on July 8, 2026, and had remained in custody for 83 days. The counsel for the petitioners argued that they were the sole breadwinners of their families and had been falsely implicated. Conversely, the prosecution, while acknowledging the filing of the charge sheet, maintained that the accusations were well-founded and opposed the bail plea.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioners, the period of incarceration undergone by them and the filing of the charge sheet, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail, subject to certain stringent conditions."

Stringent Conditions for Enlargement

Recognizing the need to balance personal liberty with the integrity of the upcoming trial, the Court has following directions:

"i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.

iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the learned Trial Court concerned.

iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.

v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer."

Background

The dispute originated from an incident leading to the registration of Crime No.137 of 2026 under Sections 109(1), 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners moved the High Court through a petition filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The defense highlighted that one of the petitioners had also lodged a complaint against the de-facto complainant, registered as Cr.No.138 of 2026, marking the incident as a classic case and counter-case. The court found that since the petitioners were permanent residents of Chittoor and Krishnagiri and had no reported adverse antecedents, they were eligible for bail subject to the aforementioned conditions.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8430/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:40928
Case Title: C Soundar Raju And Others Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): D PURNA CHANDRA REDDY, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A. SAI ROHITH (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17343