Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/2164/2026 of B Madhu Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March 2026
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2164/2026 Between: 1.B MADHU KUMAR, S/O. B. REDDY SEKHAR,AGED 34
APHC010141712026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1.B MADHU KUMAR, S/O. B. REDDY SEKHAR,AGED 34 YEARS, OCC
BRICKS
BUSINESS,R/O.
MARRIMAAKUPALLI,GANDRAJUPALLI
PANCHAYATH
AND
POST,GANGAVARAM
MANDAL,
CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,At Amaravati.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court Pleased to release the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 on bail, pending investigation, inquiry and trial in Crime No. 04/2026 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati and pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
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:
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.04 of 2026 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) read with 3(5), 49 and 61(2) BNS and Section 20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w Section 20(1)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(x) and Section 36(a) read with 32(A) of A.P. Forest (Amendment) Act..
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein/accused No.3 along with other accused trespassed into reserve forest without permission, cut the live red sander trees and committed theft and trying to shit by loading for the purpose of smuggling 72 red sander logs.
3. Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.02.2026. The investigation might have been completed by this time. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition, contending that the investigation is at a crucial stage. She would further submit that two other cases are pending against the petitioner/Accused No.3 and that the petitioner has failed to disclose his prior criminal antecedents in the present petition. It is also submitted that the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, she prayed that the petition be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he was informed by the petitioner that no criminal cases are pending against him.
7. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, if the petitioner is released on bail there is every possibility to hamper the investigation and the investigation is pending for apprehension of some other accused who are absconding. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that two more cases are pending against the petitioner/accused No.3.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioner is released on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the
Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.03.2026. SAB
Dt.24.03.2026 SAB