Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: March 31- April 06, 2025

Batha Vamsi v. The State Station House Officer: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 56

V.S. Rayudu, S/o. Gopal, Occ: Driver and Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 57

Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar v. Union Of India and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 58

A P Srinivasa Deekshitulu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 59

P V Mudhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 60

Sriram Chandra Sekhar @ Chintu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 61

Judgments/Final Orders

Rape Not Mere Physical Assault, Liberal Approach While Granting Bail Against Interest Of Society: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Batha Vamsi v. The State Station House Officer

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1986/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 56

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the offence of rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault, and adopting a liberal approach while granting bail in such cases goes against the interest of the society.

In this regard, a Single Judge Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, observed,

“The offence of rape is punishable by rigorous imprisonment for at least ten years, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. Gang rape carries twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is grave in nature. In fact, rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault. In an occurrence of this type, the resistance from the victim cannot be expected, there is no allegation that the victim was inimical or was acting against the instigation of somebody else. Therefore, the cases relating to granting of bail in offences of rape are required to be approached differently…”

Absence Of Prejudice Not Sole Ground To Brush Aside Principles Of Natural Justice: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: V.S. Rayudu, S/o. Gopal, Occ: Driver and Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 2873/2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 57

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed orders passed by the concerned Depot Manager deducting amounts from the salaries of the drivers and conductors working in the concerned depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice.

In doing so the court observed that the corporation had not followed the procedure prescribed under Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal), Regulations, 1967. It further underscored that the doctrine of prejudice does not replace of principles of natural justice but operates as an integral part of the same and the projection of an argument of prejudice would not by itself be a sole ground to brush aside the applicability of principles of natural justice.

'Shows Have Already Been Telecast': Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses PIL Challenging Increase In Ticket Prices Of Telugu Film 'Sankranthiki Vasthunam'

Case Title: Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar v. Union Of India and Others

Case Number: WP(PIL) NO: 22/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 58

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation plea challenging the increase in ticket prices of Telugu film 'Sankranthiki Vasthunam'–starring Venkatesh, Aishwarya Rajesh and Meenakshi Chaudhary–and which further sought an investigation into the film's production cost valued at over Rs. 100 crores.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in its order said:

"Be that as it may, considering the fact that there is no point in dealing with the aspect of enhancing the ticket prices for the film named “Sankranthiki Vastunam”, as the scheduled shows have already been telecast, this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is liable to be dismissed.”

Scope Of Judicial Review Very Limited In Transfers Made Due To Administrative Exigencies: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: A P Srinivasa Deekshitulu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 42273/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 59

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the Court possesses very limited scope of judicial review in cases relating to transfers made on account of administrative exigencies.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, while dismissing a writ petition challenging proceedings of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (Respondent 2), whereby it refused to transfer a Pradhana Archaka at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple at Tirupati to Srivari Temple at Tirumala, further held,

“The petitioner cannot claim any vested right to seek posting at a particular place. It is for the employer, having regard to the administrative contingencies, to decide on transfers, and such a decision, in the absence of any arbitrary and malafide attributions being made or established, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Investigators Probing Cases Involving Public Funds Must Not Reveal Details Of Probe Unless Needed, Unsubstantiated Claims Can Damage Reputations: AP HC

Case Title: P V Mudhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2904/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 60

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an Investigating Officer (IO), who is tasked with investigating matters involving public funds, should ensure that investigation details are not disclosed unless such disclosure is necessary for an investigation or for public interest at large.

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao held, “This court views that while the investigation agency claims to be investigating an allegedly major liquor scam involving thousands of crores of rupees, keeping the details about the investigation in the public domain raises serious concerns. It isn't easy to reconcile how such sensitive particulars of information could be made public at this initial stage of the investigation. The premature disclosure could significantly hinder the progress of the investigation, as it may alert those involved in the scam, allowing them to cover their tracks or alter their actions in response to the information.”

"This court views that if the particulars of the investigation, those revealed during the early stages, are not adequately substantiated or are based on incomplete or inaccurate information, it could severely damage the reputations of the individuals who have been named, and they may be portrayed as being involved in the scam, even though the investigation is still in its preliminary phase, and no conclusive material has been established against them,” he added.

"Unknown To Criminal Jurisprudence": Andhra Pradesh HC Sets Aside Order Permitting Prosecution To Frame, Alter Charges U/S 216 CrPC

Case Title: Sriram Chandra Sekhar @ Chintu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3424 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 61

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the legislative intent behind enacting Section 216 of CrPC is only to ensure that the Court retains the exclusive power to alter or add a charge depending upon the evidence placed before it and subsequently ensure that the accused is notified of the same.

Justice Harinath N explained that Section 216 does not give scope to either the prosecution or the accused to seek alteration or addition of a charge by filing an application before the Court to invoke the provisions of Section 216 of CrPC. In this regard, it further held,

“If the power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., is to be invoked by the Court thus there is no scope for filing a petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C., either by the prosecution or on behalf of the accused. If Section 216 Cr.P.C., is invoked by the prosecution or the accused there cannot be an end for any trial before any Court. If the parties to a litigation are allowed to invoke Section 216 of Cr.P.C., the very purpose of incorporating Section 216 Cr.P.C., in the Code would be defeated. If the parties misuse it, it would delay the conclusion of the trial, and the same would be beyond the scope of the Court to conclude any trial in any case.”