CRLP/6715/2025 of Kalimi Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 12 March 2026

Order:

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner/accused No.2, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.120 of 2025 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 194 of BNSS.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the incident pertains to an accidental death caused by the collapse of a wall, which occurred on 30.04.2025 at about 03:00 hours at the ₹300/- queue line near Up Hills Bus Stand, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam. On that day, the annual Chandanotsavam was being celebrated at Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam. A large number of devotees had assembled and were waiting in the queue line for darshan. During the early hours, due to rainfall, the wall collapsed, resulting in grievous injuries to eight devotees, out of whom seven succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

3. Heard Sri A. S. C. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 would submit that the case was initially registered under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused at that stage. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer filed an alteration memo, altering the offences to Sections 125(b) and 105 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It is further submitted that the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in the A.P. Tourism Development Corporation on deputation from the Water Resources Department at the time of the alleged incident. It is contended that the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India (PRASHAD Division), had issued instructions for the development of pilgrimage amenities at Simhachalam Temple as per the plans and estimates submitted by the State Government and approved by the Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee. Therefore, the petitioner has no role in the alleged incident. It is also submitted that the petitioner neither authorized nor granted permission for the construction of the wall that allegedly collapsed. Learned counsel further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 18.07.2025, granted interim protection directing the police not to take coercive steps against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that appropriate orders may be passed in the matter.

6. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 who is working as Executive Engineer in the A.P. Tourism Development Corporation on deputation from the Water Resources Department at the time of the alleged incident. The

Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 18.07.2025, granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner/accused No.2 directing the police not to take coercive steps against him. In the present case, Accused No.3, who is contractor, has already been granted anticipatory bail. It is further evident from the counter filed on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner/Accused No.2 and Accused No.1 were not aware of the approvals relating to other aspects of the work. Moreover, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the petitioner has misused the interim protection granted in his favour.

7. Having regard to the material on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The interim protection granted earlier in favour of the petitioner/accused No.2 shall continue, subject to the condition that the petitioner/accused No.2 shall cooperate with the investigation and furnish all information, material, or documents as may be required by the Investigating Officer.

(ii) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 A.M., and 05.00 P.M., till filing of charge sheet.

(iii) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall deposit his Passport before the Investigating officer and shall not leave the country without obtaining permission of the Court.

________________________________________

Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 13.03.2026 ARB

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6715 of 2025

Date: 13.03.2026

ARB