Criminal Procedure — Bail — Second bail application — Parity — Role differentiation — Misappropriation case — Partial relief Where Accused No.3 was alleged only to have received money transferred by Accused No.1 and had no independent dealings with the de-facto complainant, while Accused No.1 was alleged to have misappropriated ₹30 crores entrusted by the complainant, the High Court granted bail to Accused No.3 with stringent conditions but denied bail to Accused No.1. Repeated request for police custody having been rejected and co-accused already on bail were relevant, but gravity of accusation against Accused No.1 and ongoing investigation warranted rejection. (Karumanchi Surendra & another v. State of A.P., Crl.P. No.11561/2025, decided on 05-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

Criminal Procedure — Bail — Second bail application — Parity — Role differentiation — Misappropriation case — Partial relief
Where Accused No.3 was alleged only to have received money transferred by Accused No.1 and had no independent dealings with the de-facto complainant, while Accused No.1 was alleged to have misappropriated ₹30 crores entrusted by the complainant, the High Court granted bail to Accused No.3 with stringent conditions but denied bail to Accused No.1. Repeated request for police custody having been rejected and co-accused already on bail were relevant, but gravity of accusation against Accused No.1 and ongoing investigation warranted rejection.
(Karumanchi Surendra & another v. State of A.P., Crl.P. No.11561/2025, decided on 05-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Procedural Background

The petitioners (Accused Nos.1 and 3) sought regular bail under Sections 480 & 483 BNSS and Sections 437 & 439 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.207 of 2025 of Tanguturu Police Station, Prakasam District, concerning offences under:

• Section 338 BNS

• Section 316(4) BNS

This was the second bail application. Their first application had been dismissed on 29-10-2025.

2. Case Developments Considered by Court

• Co-accused (Accused No.2) had already been granted bail.

• A third request for police custody was dismissed.

• Certain witnesses were still to be examined.

3. Relative Role Assessment

Accused No.3 (Petitioner No.2)

• Nephew of Accused No.1.

• Allegation was limited to receiving money transferred by Accused No.1 and later withdrawing it.

• He never worked with the de-facto complainant.

The Court viewed his involvement as peripheral compared to principal allegations.

Accused No.1 (Petitioner No.1)

• Worked directly with complainant.

• Serious allegation of ₹30 crores misappropriation.

• Investigation described as still at progressive stage.

These factors weighed heavily against bail.

4. Court’s Determination

• The Court invoked proportionality and differentiation of roles.

• It accepted that Accused No.3 could be monitored through stringent conditions.

• Accused No.1’s alleged custodial role and magnitude of financial offence justified continued incarceration.

III. CONCLUSION

Relief for Accused No.3

Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 was enlarged on bail subject to strict conditions, including:

1. Execution of ₹1,00,000 bond with two sureties before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Singarayakonda.

2. Weekly reporting before Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until charge sheet.

3. No travel outside Andhra Pradesh without permission.

4. No future offences.

5. Cooperation with investigation and interrogation.

6. No inducement or intimidation of witnesses.

Refusal for Accused No.1

Given the allegation of ₹30 crore misappropriation and ongoing investigation, the Court declined bail to Accused No.1.

Disposition

The Criminal Petition was partly allowed — rejected for Accused No.1 but allowed for Accused No.3.