Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: February 2026

[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 17 TO 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 31]NOMINAL INDEXSEELAM NAGAMUNI NAIDU and Ors v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 17Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 18KALIKIRI KRANTHI CHAITHANYA ALIAS KRANTHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 19THOTA VENKATADRI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and batch: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 20 Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. The Union of India and others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 21SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 23GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died): 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 24Kanithi Deepak v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 25NALLAMOLU RAJARAJESWARI v. NALLAMOLU MOHANA MURALI: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 26G.Ravi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 27ANDHRA PRADESH ANIMAL HUSBANDARY GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 28Kamireddy Bhavani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29Dr. P. Nagaraju v. Rayalaseema University: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 30CHINNAN KRISHORE KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 31FINAL ORDERS/JUDGMENTSS.311 CrPC | Power To Recall Witness Can Be Exercised Even After Case Reserved For Judgment: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8982/2024Case Title: SEELAM NAGAMUNI NAIDU and Ors v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 17The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that where neither party seeks to examine a witness whose evidence the Court considers necessary to arrive at a just decision, then the Court can invoke its power to recall or re-examine the witness at any stage of the trial, as contemplated under Section 311 of CrPC r/w Section 165 of Evidence Act, and such power can be exercised even after closure of evidence, including when the matter is reserved for judgment.“… every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery of truth. The Court is not a mere spectator and is duty-bound to ensure that all material evidence necessary for a just decision is brought on record. The Court must not be deprived of the benefit of any valuable evidence. It is absolutely necessary that the Court must be apprised of the best evidence available. In a case where neither party is interested in examining a person as a witness yet the Court feels that the evidence of such a person is necessary for a just decision, the Court though cannot compel either the prosecution or the defence to call a witness, but it can invoke its power under Section 311 CrPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act are wide and can be exercised even after closure of evidence, including at the stage when the matter is reserved for judgment.”“Can't Cry Foul After Engaging Services”: AP High Court Reprimands State For Withholding Contractor's Dues Citing Financial CrunchCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 34418 OF 2025Case Title: Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & OrsCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 18The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reprimanded the Naidupeta Municipality authorities (Respondent 3) for withholding payments due to a contractor (petitioner) against completion of public works on account of financial constraints, observing that the Municipality cannot employ the services of third parties and then evade payment obligations on the pretext of financial hardship. The Municipality had engaged the petitioner for construction purposes, however, bills amounting to Rs.7,89,724 towards the completion of the projects remained unpaid. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that the respondents' failure in releasing the payment was illegal, malafide, and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.While the State expressed financial incapacity to clear the due amount, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed,“… this Court is constrained to observe that it is rather dismayed with regard to the response given by the Commissioner that the Financial condition of the Municipality is very critical and unable to pay the monthly wages etc.,. If the Municipality is in such critical financial constraints, this Court is unable to countenance as to why the Municipality has undertaken this kind of work and got it executed by undertaking the services and financial resources of third parties like that of the Writ Petitioner and then cry foul as regards the financial crunch.”Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To APCLC Leader Accused Of Displaying 'Satyameva Parajayate', 'Fight Hindu Fascism' BannersCase Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 512/2026Case Title: KALIKIRI KRANTHI CHAITHANYA ALIAS KRANTHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 19The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday granted regular bail to a...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: February 2026

Saahas Arora

Tags