Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1187/2026 of Sagiraju Appala Trinadha Varma alias Raghu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 7 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1187/2026 Between: 1. SAGIRAJU APPALA TRINADHA VARMA ALIAS RAGHU, S/O.VEERABHADRA RAJU, AGED 50 YEARS
APHC010536192026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1187/2026
Between:
1. SAGIRAJU
APPALA
TRINADHA
VARMA
ALIAS
RAGHU,
S/O.VEERABHADRA
RAJU,
AGED
YEARS
OCC
BUSINESS,R/O.FLAT
NO.203
ANAND
APARTMENT,
NAGARJUNANAGAR COLONY YELLAREDDYGUDA, HYDERABAD
TELANGANA STATE
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, Amalapuram Town Police Station Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. at Amaravati.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VARSHITHA KALIGINEEDI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), challenging the impugned order dated 25.09.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2026 in S.C.No.282 of 2018 by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, refusing to re-call the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on 09.09.2026.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. As seen from the record, the impugned order is interlocutory in nature. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the rights of the accused are involved in the matter. However, every accused has a corresponding obligation to appear before the Trial Court and cooperate with the conduct of the trial. When an accused fails to cooperate with the Trial Court or remains absent without sufficient cause, the Court is empowered to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant to secure his presence. Therefore, the contention regarding violation of the rights of the accused is untenable. This Court finds no merits in the Revision Petition.
4. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is permitted to appear before the learned Trial Court on 30.10.2026 without fail. Until such time, the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the Petitioner shall not be executed.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 08.10.2026 PRA
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1187/2026 Date:08.10.2026
PRA