Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal

PDJ Court Complex, Guntur · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, is posted at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,141 court orders on record since 2017. 6 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OP, CRLMP, AS cases.

2,141

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CRLMP.BAIL/755/2020

THOTTUKA SIVA KUMAR vs S.H.O.TADEPALLI P.S.

30 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri A.Hari Haranadha Sarma,

Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur

Tuesday, this the 30th day of June, 2020

Crl.M.P.No. 755 /2020

(Cr.No. 428 of 2020 of Tadepalli P.S.)

Between:

1.Thottuka Siva Kumar, S/o Babu, 31 years, Practicing Advocate, Flat No. 203, A Block, Varnika Paradise, Prathuru village, Tadepalli mandal, Guntur district.

2.Thottuka Rambabu, S/o Babu, 35 years, Prathuru village, Tadepalli mandal, Guntur district.

3.Thottuka Sai Ram, S/o Venkata Ramana @ Babu, 28 years, Prathuru village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur district.

…. Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 A N D

The State: SHO Tadepalli Police Station …. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me through

video conferencing (BlueJeans app) with the participation of Sri G.

Koteswara Rao, Advocate for Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5, and the

learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusing the material

available on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is the successive application filed U/Secs.437 and 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioners, who are Accused Nos. 1, 3 & 5 in Crime No.428/2020 of Tadepalli P.S., which was registered with the allegation of committing offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 365 r/w 34

IPC and Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that, the petitioners/A1, A3 & A5 herein along with two others (A2 & A4 ) kidnapped the son of one T. Venkata Rao resident of Iswarya colony, Vijayawada and demanded payment of

Rs.4,00,000/-. Whereupon a complaint is given to police and a case is registered for the offences stated above.

2(2).Further case of the prosecution is that police apprehended Accused

Nos.1, 3 to 5 and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of 2 mediators and arrested them having satisfied with the reasons and grounds for arrest.

3.The petitioners/ A1, A3 & A5 pleaded that they are innocent and the case is foisted with false allegations due to political rivalry in view of the petitioners association with a particular political party.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 31.5.2020. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed granting of bail to the petitioners/

Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 contending that the petitioner Nos.1, 4 & 5 are also rowdy sheeters along with some other accused.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether there are sufficient grounds to extend benefit of bail to the

Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 ?

7.P O I N T:-

The earlier applications of the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 filed for grantofbailviz.,Crl.M.P.No.648/2020,Crl.M.P.No.690/2020,

Crl.M.P.No.735/2020 were dismissed on 8.6.2020, 15.6.2020, 22.6.2020

respectively considering the circumstances existing by then. Now upon examining the facts and circumstances of the case, stage of investigation that as many as seven witnesses apart from mediators etc., are examined and that

Accused Nos.2 and 4 are enlarged on bail and the other relevant aspects, this

Court finds that there is no necessity to continue the petitioners/ A1, A3 and A5 in jail. However, it is necessary to impose reasonable conditions while granting bail to the petitioners/A1, A3 and A5. Point framed is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed as follows:

1) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 shall be released on bail on the condition of they executing bail bond for Rs.30,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri.

2) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 and their sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned Police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, from time to time.

3) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 shall furnish the details of the properties (both movable and immovable). If they are not having any property, they shall file affidavit that they are not having any property.

(This condition is imposed as the same is helpful in addressing the issue relating to compensation in terms of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. at the time of final disposal of case).

4)It is needless to mention that if the contents of the affidavit are found false they shall be liable for appropriate prosecution.

5) The Petitioners / Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 shall not make any attempt to contact the witnesses and influence them with regard to the case.

6) Further for the purpose of expediting the investigation process and to keep track on his conduct, the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 are directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., on 1st Sunday of every month between 10.00 am and 2.00 p.m., for a period of four months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

After release the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 shall observe guidelines regarding quarantine as may be directed by the concerned authorities time to time and the concerned police are at liberty to have surveillance.

7) The Petitioners /Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 shall be abide by conditions

U/section 437 (3) Cr.PC.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, over Video Conference, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in my house office, on this the 30 th day of June, 2020.

(Sd/-) Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR 4

Copies to:

1. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. The S.H.O., Tadepalli P.S.

3. Sri Habibulla Shaik, Advocate for the petitioner

4. Public Prosecutor.

5. To any other concern. ( Copies to 1 to 5 shall be through e-mail, Whatsapp in PDF format)

6. Spare Copy to file

CRLMP.BAIL/739/2020

SANKURU SATHEESH vs S.H.O. TADEPALLI P.S

24 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri A.Hari Haranadha Sarma,

Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur

Wednesday, this the 24th day of June, 2020

Crl.M.P.No. 739 /2020

(Cr.No. 428 of 2020 of Tadepalli P.S.)

Between: Sankuru Satheesh Babu, S/o Ramesh Babu, Hindu, aged 24 years, R/o Near Luthern Church, Christianpet, Tadepalli, Guntur district …. Petitioner/ A4 A N D

The State: SHO Tadepalli Police Station …. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me through

video conferencing (BlueJeans app) with the participation of Sri Habibulla

Shaik, Advocate for Petitioner/A4, and the learned Public Prosecutor for

the State, and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court

made the following:

O R D E R

This is a successive application filed U/Secs.437 and 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner, who is Accused No.4 in

Crime No.428/2020 of Tadepalli P.S., which was registered with the allegation of committing offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 365 r/w 34 IPC and

Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that, the petitioner/A4 herein along with four others (A1, A3 to A5) kidnapped the son of one T. Venkata Rao resident of

Iswarya colony, Vijayawada and demanded payment of Rs.4,00,000/-.

Whereupon a complaint is given to police and a case is registered for the offences stated above.

2(2).Further case of the prosecution is that police apprehended Accused

Nos.1, 3 to 5 and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of mediators and arrested them having satisfied with the reasons and grounds for arrest.

3.The petitioner/ A4 pleaded that he is innocent and the case is foisted with false allegations due to political rivalry in view of the petitioner’s association with a particular political party.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 31.5.2020. The petitioner’s father is suffering with severe kidney problem and the assistance of the petitioner/ A4 is necessary and that the petitioner is the sole bread winner for the family. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner/ A4.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed granting of bail to the petitioner/

A4 contending that the petitioner is also a rowdy sheeter along with some other accused.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether there are sufficient grounds to extend benefit of bail to the

Petitioner/ A4 ?

7.P O I N T:-

The earlier application of the petitioner/ A4 filed for grant of bail viz.,

Crl.M.P.No.683/2020 was dismissed on 12.6.2020 considering the

circumstances existing by then. Now upon examining the facts and circumstances of the case, stage of investigation that as many as seven witnesses including Ratna Sekhar the victim are examined and other relevant aspects, this Court finds that there is no necessity to continue the petitioner/ A4 in jail. However, it is necessary to impose reasonable conditions while granting bail to the petitioner/A4. Point framed is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed as follows:

1) The Petitioner / A4 shall be released on bail on the condition of he executing bail bond for Rs.30,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri.

2) The Petitioner / A4 and their sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned

Police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, from time to time.

3) The Petitioner / A4 shall furnish the details of the properties (both movable and immovable). If he is not having any property, he shall file affidavit that he is not having any property. (This condition is imposed as the same is helpful in addressing the issue relating to compensation in terms of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. at the time of final disposal of case).

4)It is needless to mention that if the contents of the affidavit are found false he shall be liable for appropriate prosecution.

5) The Petitioner / A4 shall not make any attempt to contact the witnesses and influence them with regard to the case.

6) Further for the purpose of expediting the investigation process and to keep track on his conduct, the Petitioner / A4 is directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., on 1st Sunday of every month between 10.00 am and 2.00 p.m., for a period of four months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

After release the petitioner/ A4 shall observe guidelines regarding quarantine as may be directed by the concerned authorities time to time and the concerned police are at liberty to have surveillance.

7) The Petitioner /A4 shall be abide by conditions U/section 437 (3)

Cr.PC.

Dictated to the Stenographer G II , transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me on this the 24 th day of June, 2020.

(Sd/-) Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR Copies to:

1. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. The S.H.O., Tadepalli P.S.

3. Sri Habibulla Shaik, Advocate for the petitioner

4. Public Prosecutor.

5. To any other concern. ( Copies to 1 to 5 shall be through e-mail, Whatsapp in PDF format)

6. Spare Copy to file

CRLMP.BAIL/736/2020

BODA SUBBARAO vs S.H.O.KROSURU P.S.

22 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri A.Hari Haranadha Sarma,

Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur

Monday, this the 22nd day of June, 2020

Crl.M.P.No. 736 /2020

(Cr.No. 82 of 2020 of Krosuru P.S.)

Between: Boda Subba Rao, S/o Yedukondalu, aged 32 years, R/o Dodleru village, Krosuru mandal, Guntur district. …. Petitioner/Accused No.1 A N D

The State S.H.O., Krosuru P.S. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Guntur …. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me through

video conferencing (BlueJeans app) with the participation of Sri M. Sekhar

Babu, Advocate for Petitioner/Accused No.1, and the learned Public

Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusing the material available on

record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a successive application filed U/Secs.437 and 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused

No.1 in Crime No.82/2020 of Krosuru P.S., which was registered with the allegation of committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 r/w 34

IPC.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that, one Koteswaramma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) is the wife of the petitioner/ A1 and their marriage was performed about 10 years back. The petitioner/ A1 used to subject his wife/ deceased to harassment by suspecting her fidelity etc., and at last she found dead at matrimonial home and that the deceased might have been killed by the petitioner/ A1 and his mother for the sake of money, suspicion etc.

3.The petitioner/ A1 claimed that he is innocent and the case is foisted with false allegations.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/ A1 submitted that the petitioner/ A1 was arrested on 22.4.2020 and for over 60 days the petitioner/ A1 is languishing 2 in jail. The marriage between petitioner and the deceased is 10 years old, there are children and the care of petitioner/ A1 is necessary for the children.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor formally opposed granting of bail to the petitioner/ A1.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether there are sufficient grounds to extend benefit of bail to the

Petitioner/A1 ?

7.P O I N T:-

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the substantial part of investigation is completed and FSL report is awaited. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, stage of investigation, nature and depth of allegations, present pandemic situation due to Covid-19 and other relevant aspects, this Court finds that there is no necessity to continue the petitioner/ A1 in jail. However, it is necessary to impose reasonable conditions while granting bail to the petitioner/A1. Point framed is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed as follows:

1) The Petitioner / A1 shall be released on bail on the condition of he executing bail bond for Rs.30,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sattenapalli.

2) The Petitioner / A1 and their sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned

Police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, from time to time.

3) The Petitioner / A1 shall furnish the details of the properties (both movable and immovable). If he is not having any property, he shall file affidavit that he is not having any property. (This condition is imposed as the same is helpful in addressing the issue relating to compensation in terms of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. at the time of final disposal of case).

4)It is needless to mention that if the contents of the affidavit are found false he shall be liable for appropriate prosecution.

5) The Petitioner / A 1 shall not make any attempt to contact the witnesses and influence them with regard to the case.

6) Further for the purpose of expediting the investigation process and to keep track on his conduct, the Petitioner / A1 is directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., on 1st Sunday of every month between 10.00 am and 2.00 p.m., for a period of four months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

After release the petitioner/ A1 shall observe guidelines regarding quarantine as may be directed by the concerned authorities time to time and the concerned police are at liberty to have surveillance.

7) The Petitioner /A1 shall be abide by conditions U/section 437 (3)

Cr.PC.

Dictated to the Stenographer G II , transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me on this the 22nd day of June, 2020.

(Sd/-) Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR Copies to:

1. The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalle.

2. The S.H.O., Krosuru P.S.

3. Sri M. Sekhar Babu, Advocate for the petitioner

4. Public Prosecutor.

5. To any other concern. ( Copies to 1 to 5 shall be through e-mail, Whatsapp in PDF format)

6. Spare Copy to file

CRLMP.BAIL/735/2020

THOTTUKA SIVA KUMAR vs S.H.O.TADEPALLI P.S.

22 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri A.Hari Haranadha Sarma,

Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur

Monday, this the 22nd day of June, 2020

Crl.M.P.No. 735 /2020

(Cr.No. 428 of 2020 of Tadepalli P.S.)

Between:

1.Thottuka Siva Kumar, S/o Babu, 31 years, Practicing Advocate, Flat No. 203, A Block, Varnika Paradise, Prathuru village, Tadepalli mandal, Guntur district.

2.Thottuka Rambabu, S/o Babu, 35 years, Prathuru village, Tadepalli mandal, Guntur district.

3.Thottuka Sai Ram, S/o Venkata Ramana @ Babu, 28 years, Prathuru village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur district.

…. Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 A N D

The State: SHO Tadepalli PS. …. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me

through video conferencing (BlueJeans app) with the

participation of Sri G. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5, and the learned Public

Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusing the material

available on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is the successive application filed U/Secs.437 and 439 of

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioners, who are

Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 in Crime No.428/2020 of Tadepalli P.S., which was registered with the allegation of committing offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 365 r/w34 IPC and Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise

Act.

2.Heard.

3.Point that arises for determination is,

Whether there are sufficient grounds to extend benefit of bail

to the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5?

P O I N T :

4.The case of prosecution in brief is that, there were some money delayings between the 1st petitioner/ A1 and one Ratna Sekhar son of the informant and the car of Ratna Sekhar was pledged in that connection. The differences and disputes relating to money came to peak and on 30.5.2020 the 1st petitioner/ A1 along with other accused kidnapped Ratna Sekhar and demanded Rs.4,00,000/- from his parents. On raid police found the accused with 72 liquor bottles etc., and that the accused are habituated to involve in different kinds of offences including the offence under Section 353 IPC causing obstruction to the duties of public servants.

5.The petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 claimed that they are innocent and the case is foisted with false allegations.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 submitted that for over 20 days the petitioners have been in jail.

Substantial part of investigation might have been completed. The other cases referred are nothing to do with the present case. There are no specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for benefit of bail.

7.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed granting of bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 contending that investigation is not yet completed. The petitions are being filed one after other with short intervels. Rowdy sheets were opened against A1, A4 and A5 covered by HS.No.504, HS.No.506, HS.No.507 respectively in Tadepalli Police

Station.

8.The objections of the prosecution for release of the petitioners/A1, A3 and A5 are that,

a)Source of liquor bottles kept for sale during Covid-19 period has to be ascertained.

b)A1, A4 and A5 are having rowdy sheets.

c)The petitioners are having criminal cases and selling illicit liquor during Covid-19 period.

d)Tadepalli is high zone security area.

e)The petitioners are likely to spread Corona Virus by selling liquor.

f)The petitioners are likely to abscond if they released on bail.

g)The petitioners/ A1, A3 and A5 are involved in Cr.No.

188/17 under Section 353 r/w 34 IPC.

h)The 3rd petitioner/ A5 involved in a Ganja case and seized 2 Kgs of Ganja from her in Cr.No. 105/2020 of Tadepalli P.S.

i)The 3rd petitioner/ A5 involved in Cr.No.138/17 under

Section 324 IPC of Tadepalli P.S.

j)Investigation is not yet completed.

9. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, stage of investigation, nature and depth of allegations etc., this Court finds that the prayer of the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5 for granting bail does not deserve positive consideration and this is neither a fit case nor stage for granting bail to the petitioners/

Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5. Point framed is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer G II , transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me on this the 22nd day of June, 2020.

(Sd/-) Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR Copies to:

1. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. The S.H.O., Tadepalli P.S.

3. Sri G. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioners

4. Public Prosecutor.

5. To any other concern. ( Copies to 1 to 5 shall be through e-mail, Whatsapp in PDF format)

6. Spare Copy to file

OS/232/2018

M/S. Sree Tirumala Cotton Corporation vs M/S. Mangalagiri Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., and another

20 Jun 2020

Order Record 2,116 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRLMP.BAIL/755/2020	THOTTUKA SIVA KUMAR vs S.H.O.TADEPALLI P.S.	30 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/739/2020	SANKURU SATHEESH vs S.H.O. TADEPALLI P.S	24 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/735/2020	THOTTUKA SIVA KUMAR vs S.H.O.TADEPALLI P.S.	22 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/736/2020	BODA SUBBARAO vs S.H.O.KROSURU P.S.	22 Jun 2020	Order	—
OS/232/2018	M/S. Sree Tirumala Cotton Corporation vs M/S. Mangalagiri Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., and another	20 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLRP/23/2020	PAGADAM RAJASEKHAR REDDY @ NANI @ CHINNA. vs S.H.O. CHANDOLE P.S. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECTOR, DISTRICT COURT, GUNTUR .	19 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/693/2020	BORDANI BHARGAV vs S.H.O. TADEPALLI P.S	16 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/687/2020	THOTTUKA KANAKAMMA vs S.H.O.TADEPALLI P.S.	15 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/690/2020	THOTTUKA SIVA KUMAR vs S.H.O. TADEPALLI P.S	15 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/683/2020	SANKURU SATHEESH BABU vs S.H.O.TADEPALLI P.S.	12 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/636/2020	TALLAPALLI MADHU vs S.H.O.ARUNDELPET P.S.	03 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/616/2020	PINNIBOINA LAKSHMI vs S.H.O.BAPATLA TOWN P.S.	27 May 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/604/2020	KOJJA YEDUKONDALU vs S.H.O ATCHAMPET P.S	26 May 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/598/2020	PINNIBOINA SRINIVAS @SRINU vs S.H.O.BAPATLA TOWN P.S.	20 May 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/585/2020	GUNJI YEDUKONDALU vs S.H.O.SATTENAPALLI RURAL P.S.	13 May 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/572/2020	BODA SUBBA RAO vs S.H.O.KROSURU P.S.	11 May 2020	Order	—
AS/221/2008	Syed Mahaboob Jilani and other vs Syed Khasim and 16 others	08 May 2020	Judgement	—
OS/122/2012	Kodela Siva Prasada Rao vs Jagathi Publications Ltd., and 3 Others	08 May 2020	Judgement	—
CRLA/395/2017	KORRAPATI ASWIN CHANDRA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE A.P., REP BY FOOD SAFETY OFFICER,GUNTUR	30 Apr 2020	Judgement	—
CRLA/590/2016	NAIDU KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY vs FOOD SAFETY OFFICER, DIVISION B,	30 Apr 2020	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/549/2020	GUNJI VENKATESWARLU vs S.H.O.SATTENAPALLI RURAL P.S.	30 Apr 2020	Order	—
OP/1170/2019	MANNEM SEETAMMA vs ORSU @ CHALLA PEDDA ANJANEYULU	28 Apr 2020	Order	—
AS/258/2016	Jalleda Naga Raju vs Kota Lakshmi Kanthamma	27 Apr 2020	Judgement	—
OP/107/2019	Aluri Venu Gopala Rao vs Gadipudi Kamala Devi	27 Apr 2020	Order	—
OP/108/2019	Aluri Venu Gopala Rao vs Gadipudi Kamala Devi	27 Apr 2020	Order	—
OP/446/2016	Chebrolu Engineering College vs MS. Shriram Transport finance Co., Ltd., Tenali and 2 others	27 Apr 2020	Order	—
OP/447/2016	Chebrolu Engineering College vs Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., and 2 others	27 Apr 2020	Order	—
OP/448/2016	Chebrolu Engineering College vs Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., and 2 others	27 Apr 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/532/2020	THUMMA AROGYAMMA vs S.H.O.ATCHAMPET P.S.	27 Apr 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/516/2020	GUNJI VENKATESWARLU vs S.H.O.SATENAPALLI RURAL P.S.	24 Apr 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/489/2020	DAITHA GOVINDU vs S.H.O PONNUR RURAL P.S	13 Apr 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/504/2020	SHAIK SABIR vs S.H.O.OLD GUNTUR P.S	13 Apr 2020	Order	—
ATA/3/2019	NAKKALA SAMBAIAH vs PAMIDI SRINU BABU	24 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/335/2019	Shriram City Union Finance vs Bollavarapu Anjaneyulu	24 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/338/2019	Esthalla Vijaya Lakshmi vs Esthalla Padma Rao	23 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/1120/2016	Shaik Khasim vs Shaik Basha and another	23 Mar 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/481/2020	PELLERU VENKATESWARA RAO vs S.H.O. CHEBROLU P.S	23 Mar 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/461/2020	CHILVERU SRI LALITHA VYSHNAVI vs S.H.O.ARUNDELPET P.S.	20 Mar 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/454/2020	NUTALAPATI IRMIYA vs S.H.O. ARUNDELPET P.S	19 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/282/2015	S.R.R.Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., and another vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,Guntur	18 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/1158/2016	Ponugoti Ashok Kumar vs Ponugoti Neeraja	18 Mar 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/444/2020	SHAIK MOHAMMAD vs S.H.O. MANGALAGIRI RURAL P.S	17 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/116/2009	Medapati Veera Venkata Rama Reddy and 3 others vs Yarramsetty Eswara Rao	16 Mar 2020	Decree	—
CRLMP.BAIL/426/2020	VIPPALA VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY vs S.H.O NALLAPADU P.S	16 Mar 2020	Order	—
AS/100/2017	Thurimella Lakshmi vs Thalathoti Shadrock Chandra Sekhar	13 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OP/552/2019	Shaik Shaheena vs Shaik Abdul Raheem	13 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/834/2019	Karumuri Prameela vs Karumanchi Meeravali	13 Mar 2020	Other	—
CRLRP/14/2020	VADLAMANU NARENDRA REDDY vs S.H.O RAJUPALEM P.S	13 Mar 2020	Order	—
AS/49/2010	Makineni Aswini and another vs Makineni Sambaiah and another	12 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
AS/267/2010	Makineni Sambaiah vs Makineni Narasamma	12 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CMA/4/2018	Kavuru Uma Devi vs Guntuipalli Raghunadha Rao	12 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/321/2017	Mallampalli Veera Bhadra Rao vs Nil	12 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/322/2017	Mallampalli Bala Bhaskara Rao vs Nil	12 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/1061/2019	GOVINDU SANDHYA RANI vs GOVINDU MARIYANNA	12 Mar 2020	Order	—
AS/277/2016	Peddinti Kalyani vs The Guntur Municipal Corporation	11 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/352/2020	PUVVADA SRI RANGA LAKSHMI KUMARI vs S.H.O. VINUKONDA TOWN P.S	11 Mar 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/372/2020	KUNTIGORLA YALLAMANDA vs S.H.O MEDIKONDURU P.S	11 Mar 2020	Order	—
AS/59/2018	Kilaru Parvathi Devi and 3 others vs Kanneganti Srinivasarao	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/98/2002	Sri Venkata Srinivasa Traders vs Hindon Rever Mills	10 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/521/2015	Garineni Nirmala vs Lanka Ramana Kumari and another	10 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/354/2020	UPPUTURI RANGA RAO @NALLA RANGAIAH vs S.H.O.VATTICHERUKURU P.S	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/379/2020	CHUNUDURU PITCHAIAH vs S.H.O. MANGALAGIRI RURAL P.S	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/393/2020	VELAGAPUDI KISHORE KUMAR vs S.H.O. MANGALAGIRI RURAL P.S	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
OP/670/2018	Nelapati Kalpana and another vs Guntupalli Siva Kumari and another	29 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/1122/2016	Kunchanapalli Bulli Babu vs A.P.S.R.T.C. and 2 others	28 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/1123/2016	Kolla Dhanalakshmi vs A.P.S.R.T.C. and 2 others	28 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/1124/2016	Avula Kanaka Durga vs A.P.S.R.T.C. and 2 others	28 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/1125/2016	Kunchanapalli Venkata Durga vs A.P.S.R.T.C. and 2 others	28 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/1126/2016	Bandaru Siva Parvathi vs A.P.S.R.T.C. and 2 others	28 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/1415/2017	Kakkera Seshamma and 2 others vs Chandolu Nageswara Rao and another	28 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CRLA/43/2019	Vanga Gopala Krishna Reddy vs The State Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kollipara Rep. by P.P., Guntur	28 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/327/2020	RAMISETTY SAMBASIVA RAO vs S.H.O NALLAPADU P.S	28 Feb 2020	Order	—
AS/223/2016	Valluri Naga Malleswari vs Alla Venu Gopal	27 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/1285/2018	Mandha Munemma vs Chilakala Brahmananda Reddy	27 Feb 2020	Other	—
AS/149/2018	Kanuganti Naga Prasad vs Kandragunta Sankara Rao	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/610/2019	Kalapala Sagar Kumar vs Vsnil	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/287/2020	SHAIK NAGOOR vs S.H.O MANGALAGIRI RURAL P.S	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/304/2020	RAMALINGAM GANDHI REDDY vs S.H.O TADEPALLI P.S	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/326/2020	LAKSHMISETTY HARI HARA PRASAD vs S.H.O VATTICHERUKURU P.S	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/234/2019	Pirati Sivaiah vs Somarothu Nageswari	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/299/2019	Shaik Jani Saheb vs Shaik Gulijar Bi	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/305/2019	Shaik Jani Saheb vs Shaik Gulijar	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/306/2019	Shaik Jani Saheb vs Shaik Gulijar	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/307/2019	Shaik Jani Saheb vs Shaik Guljar	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/308/2019	Shaik Jani Saheb vs Shaik Guljar Bi	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/1171/2019	KAMUNURI SAMYEL vs KAMUNURI SANTHI	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
CRLA/34/2019	Penumatcha Sri Ranga Raju and Three Others vs The State SHO., Bapatla Town P.S., Rep. by P.P., Guntur	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
AS/114/2017	Kanala Sreenivasarao vs Parchuri Saraswathi	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/100/2019	Pitla Koteswaramma vs Pitla Srinivasa Reddy	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/403/2019	Chitala Aruna Kumari vs Nil	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
CRLRP/79/2019	Maddirala Veeranjaneyulu vs Maddirala @ Munagoti Lakshmi Tirupathamma and another	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/281/2020	ANNAPUREDDY VENKATESWARLU vs S.H.O OLD GUNTUR P.S	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
AS/247/2018	Manda Premanandam vs Kalisetty Lakshmi	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/550/2018	Burugu Sowjanya vs Katta Ratna babu	19 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/583/2019	Ala Radhika @ Dara Radhika vs NIL	19 Feb 2020	Order	—
AS/342/2016	Kachala Ravi KUmar vs Dr. N.Prabhavathi	17 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/302/2019	Shriram City Union Finance vs Kommasani Sreenivasa Rao	17 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/42/2017	Srinadh Infra Project India Pvt. Ltd., vs Attaluri Seetharamadasu and 7 others	14 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/337/2019	Dhanekula Rajeswari vs Bathineni Srinivasa Rao	14 Feb 2020	Order	—
OP/556/2019	Kolagani Yedukondalu vs Nimmala Akkamma	14 Feb 2020	Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,116 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2020		11
May 2020		7
Apr 2020		14
Mar 2020		31
Feb 2020		67
Jan 2020		49
Dec 2019		206
Nov 2019		91
Oct 2019		79
Sep 2019		38
Aug 2019		54
Jul 2019		82

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma handled?

Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma has handled 2141 court orders since 2017 at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur. The average disposal rate is 92 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma hear?

Based on available records, Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma primarily handles Civil matters (Original Petitions, Appeal Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, CRL) at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur.

Where is Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma currently posted?

Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma is posted as Chairman, Industrial Tribunal at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma available online?

Yes. 6 judgments by Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma dispose cases?

Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma disposes approximately 92 cases per month, based on 2141 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur.

Since when is Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma serving?

Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma has been serving at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur since 2017.

Case Types

OP 52%

CRLMP 14%

AS 12%

CRLA 8%

CRLRP 5%

OS 5%

T 4%

CRL 1%

Posting History

Jan 2019 — Jan 2019

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal
Apr 2018 — Apr 2018

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge · 1 orders
Jul 2017 — Oct 2017

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal
Feb 2017 — Jul 2020

Prl. District and Sessions Judge · 2,140 orders

Outcomes on Record

Dismissed As Not Pressed Disposal Date: 12-04-2018 Iii Addl 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri B Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

866 orders

Smt. V.A.L. Sathyavathi

I Addl. District and Sessions Juge

2,279 orders

Sri Y.Nagaraja

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge

721 orders

Chilam Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge

396 orders

Vusa Srinivasa Rao

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge

3 orders

Smt. K. Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge

1,452 orders

Sri K. Seetharama Krishna Rao

VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge

1 orders

Smt. B. Manjari

VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge

0 orders

Sri K. Jayakumar

X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala

2 orders

Sri M. Vengaiah

XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tenali

0 orders

Sk Sikinder Basha

XII Addl. Dist Judge cum Judge Family Court

0 orders

D Ramulu

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal

0 orders

Smt. K. Radha Ratnam

Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Bapatla

0 orders

Sri. M. Gurunath

Asst., Sessions Judge, Gurazala

0 orders

Sri. O.V. Nageswar Rao

Prl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Smt. M.V. Ramana Kumari

I Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Smt. G. Anandi

II Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge FTC, Guntur

0 orders

Smt. Nagamani

Addl Asst. Sessions Court, Bapatla formerly III AS...

0 orders

Smt. P. Kamala Devi

IV Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Sri K. Chiranjeevulu

Asst., Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri

0 orders

Sri. Ch. Madhava rao

Prl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

0 orders

Smt. A. lakshmi

Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

0 orders

Sri. K. Satya Naga Bala Prasad

Asst., Sessions Judge, Repalle

0 orders

High Court

High Court of A.P.

0 orders

A.Solomon

Asst., Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli

0 orders

Shmmi Parvin Sultana Begum

Pocso Court, Guntur

441 orders

Sri D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju

Addl. Family Court Guntur

0 orders

Sri T.V.Rajesh Kumar

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Smt. A. Sunitha Rani

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge FTC, Guntur

68 orders

Post kept vacant

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge FTC, Guntur

0 orders

C. Ramana Reddy

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

K. Chidananda

VI Additional District Judge FTC

0 orders

Sri Rajasekhar Pallagani

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

0 orders

Ms. M.jagadeeswari

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

408 orders

Dhanaraju Dammalapati

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

275 orders

V.raghunath

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

K.V.Mahalakshmi

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

2 orders

Post Vacant

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

A. Satyanand

IV Addl. Senior civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

N. Solomon

V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

M. Sobha Rani

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

273 orders

Smt. Kolar Latha

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

626 orders

Mohammad Gouse

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

203 orders

Smt. B Mary Sara Danamma

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class for Excise, Guntur

397 orders

Miss. V.deepthi

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Guntu

0 orders

K.Kiran kumar

Judicial Magistrate of I class for Railways

0 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur

Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

(Cr.No. 428 of 2020 of Tadepalli P.S.)

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me through

video conferencing (BlueJeans app) with the participation of Sri G.

Koteswara Rao, Advocate for Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5, and the

learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusing the material

O R D E R

Whether there are sufficient grounds to extend benefit of bail to the

(Cr.No. 428 of 2020 of Tadepalli P.S.)

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me through

video conferencing (BlueJeans app) with the participation of Sri Habibulla

Shaik, Advocate for Petitioner/A4, and the learned Public Prosecutor for

the State, and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court

O R D E R

Whether there are sufficient grounds to extend benefit of bail to the

(Cr.No. 82 of 2020 of Krosuru P.S.)

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me through

video conferencing (BlueJeans app) with the participation of Sri M. Sekhar

Babu, Advocate for Petitioner/Accused No.1, and the learned Public

Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusing the material available on

O R D E R

Whether there are sufficient grounds to extend benefit of bail to the

(Cr.No. 428 of 2020 of Tadepalli P.S.)

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me

through video conferencing (BlueJeans app) with the

participation of Sri G. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 & 5, and the learned Public

Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusing the material

O R D E R

Whether there are sufficient grounds to extend benefit of bail

IN THE COURT OF

OS/232/2018

ORDER