Kethi Reddy Obireddy At Obul Reddy vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioners (A2 to A4). The Court noted that the petitioners had been in judicial custody since October 26, 2023, and it was reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the investigation might have been completed. Therefore, further detention of the petitioners in jail was deemed not warranted, and there was no perceived chance of them hampering the investigation. The Court ordered the release of the petitioners upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Additionally, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer once a week, every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., for a period of three months. They were also instructed not to directly or indirectly contact or threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence, and to cooperate with the investigation. The Court made it clear that any breach of these conditions would be viewed seriously, and the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

Facts

The petitioners, accused numbers 2 to 4, sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. 229 of 2023 registered at Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District. The case was registered for offenses under Sections 143, 341, 332, 307, 323, and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with others, were involved in misappropriating funds by forging documents related to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The defacto complainant, a Special Secretary to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, reported that two files from YSR Memorial Hospitals, Ananthapuramu, were found suspicious and upon verification, were determined to be fake. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since October 26, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. given their period of custody and the stage of investigation? Arguments for the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that they have been in judicial custody since October 26, 2023, and that the major part of the investigation has been completed. They contended that further detention is not warranted and that there is no likelihood of them hampering the investigation. Arguments for the Respondent (State): The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail, stating that the investigation is not yet completed. The prosecution primarily relied on call data and WhatsApp messages allegedly exchanged between the petitioners and the first accused (A1), which data was yet to be collected.