Sri A.Satyanand

APPR000017822026

In The Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Ongole)

Present: Sri A.Satyanand (AP00251),

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Ongole.

Thursday, the Fourteenth (14th) Day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.166/2026

( Cr.No.249/2025 of Ongole Taluk Police Station)

Between: Mannem Teja @ Banny, S/o. Mohan Babu, age: 21 years, Damaramadugu Village, Buchireddypalem, Nellore District … Petitioner/A5 And:

The State, SHO, Ongole Taluk PS, Rep. by Public prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This application came before me for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Srinivasa Rao and Shaik Karimullah, Advocatesfor Petitioner/A5 and of M.Ajoy Babu, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusal of the material available on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This is 4th bail application filed U/Sec.483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha

Sanhitha, 2023, by the Petitioner/A5, praying for grant of bail in a case registered for the alleged offences punishable U/Secs.331(5), 103(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the following averments:

1.1) As per the Respondent, the deceased is a rich man and doing liquor, sand and real estate businesses and active politician of T.D.P and he staying at

Ongole. He is no other than nephew of former MLA and ZP Chairperson. He has got number of enemies because of his businesses and he is a petition monger due to which A8 incurred huge loss and there is no evidence against the Petitioner/A5 to connect with the incident.

1.2) At the time of arrest of Petitioner/A5, his photographs were taken to enable the witnesses to identify him. CCTV footage collected by the Investigating 2 Crl.M.P.166/2026, PDJ, Ongole 1.3) Officer goes to show that the assailants are wearing face masks. The investigation is tainted with political influence resulting in false implication of the petitioner. The case of prosecution is based on confessions. The entire political machinery of ruling party is behind the deceased. Except the confessional statement, no incriminating material is there against the Petitioner.

1.4) Petitioner/A5 was already taken into custody by the

Respondent and was interrogated. Hence, the Petitioner is no more required by the police. As many as 30 witnesses are examined, identification proceedings have been completed. The Petitioner has got strong community ties and will not leave the jurisdiction as such, there is no flight risk. Petitioner's earlier bail application was dismissed as some investigation is pending. The Petitioner is in judicial custody from 15.05.2025 and the charge sheet is laid on 11.08.2025. Hence, the

Petitioner may be granted bail.

2. Respondent contended that, as 1st accused is doing illegal sand business to which the deceased become hurdle, he consulted A6 and A7, who got enmity with the deceased and they conspired together to kill the deceased, and A1 hired with the help of his relatives and assistance of A9 and A10 and another relative A11 and A12 after securing information about the movements of the deceased through A9, as per their plan, hired

A2 to A5 and got the deceased killed in his office by stabbing indiscriminately, and four knives used by A2 to A5, and eight mobile phones were seized, and test identification was also conducted and that the Petitioner/A5 involved in two hurt cases, and if granted bail he may threaten witnesses and try to tamper the evidence and investigation is being continued for collection of more evidence and the offence is 3 Crl.M.P.166/2026, PDJ, Ongole heinous act and hence, bail cannot be granted.

3. Heard both sides, who reiterated their respective contentions.

4. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner/A5 can be granted bail?

5. Point:

5.1) According to the prosecution, A1 and A6 to A8 are friends and

A1 with the assistance of A9 and A10 and also A12 hired A2 to A5 to murder the deceased and accordingly A2 to A5 killed the deceased in his office by indiscriminately stabbing him. According to the Petitioner/A5, he is no way concerned with the offence, but was implicated in this case, and as the deceased has got number of enemies, somebody might have killed him, but he was implicated and that more than 30 witnesses are examined and he was interrogated after taking him into custody, and except the alleged confession, no material is there to connect him with the offence, and as he got strong ties in the society, question of leaving jurisdiction of Court does not arise, and to avoid grant of mandatory bail, prosecution filed incomplete charge sheet and it was returned and that his earlier bail applications were dismissed on the ground of seriousness of the offence which cannot be sole ground to dismiss the petition.

5.2) Perusal of record shows that the Petitioner/A5 was arrested on 14.05.2025, and since then he is in judicial custody. Though the prosecution alleged to have filed preliminary charge sheet, the copy of it is not produced along with CD. Moreover, on enquiry, from the office of

III-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Ongole, it is learnt that the charge sheet which was represented on 05.01.2026 was again returned on 06.01.2026 and was not re-presented.

4 Crl.M.P.166/2026, PDJ, Ongole

Hence, it is clear that by the time of filing of this petition, charge sheet was not yet numbered and it is filed only to prevent grant of mandatory bail to the Petitioner. Moreover, even as per the submissions of Public

Prosecutor, the investigation in this case is pending for examination of some more witnesses which suggests that the investigation is not yet completed though one year period is elapsed from the date of arrest

Petitioner/A5.

5.3) Petitioner’s earlier bail applications were dismissed on the ground that if granted bail, Petitioner may threaten and coerce eye witnesses and if they did not hear succumb to his words, he may cause harm to the witnesses. The case of the Respondent mainly based on the alleged confession of the Petitioner/A5 and other co-accused which in fact not admissible in evidence. As the charge sheet is not yet numbered, there is no chance of proceeding with trial after commitment of case by keeping the Petitioner in judicial custody. The Petitioner undertakes to appear before Court on all adjournments and cooperate with police for completion of investigation pending if any. If the Petitioner on release on bail makes any attempt to threaten the witnesses or to interfere with the investigation, the prosecution is entitled to seek cancellation of the bail simply because some more cases are pending against accused, it cannot be a ground to deny bail to him as it amounts to pre-judge him based on unproved allegations. Hence, after taking the above circumstances particularly the fact that the charge sheet was not yet re-submitted to get numbered though the petitioner/A5 is in judicial custody for the last one year, I feel it just to grant conditional bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

5.4) In the result, this petition is allowed ordering release of 5 Crl.M.P.166/2026, PDJ, Ongole

Petitioner/A5 on bail on execution of bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of III-Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ongole. On such release, the Petitioner shall

appear before SHO, Ongole Taluk PS., on every Sunday for a period of three months or till numbering of charge sheet. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the Respondent for completion of investigation by appearing before him on receipt of two days notice.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer,corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 14th Day of May, 2026.

A.Satyanand (AP00251)

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam at Ongole

Copy to:

1. The III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

2. The Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station

3. Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for Petitioner/A2

4. The Public Prosecutor, Ongole

5. The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole //t.c.f.b.o//

Chief Administrative Officer

Principal District Court, Ongole

APPR000017812026

In The Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Ongole)

Present: Sri A.Satyanand (AP00251),

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Ongole.

Thursday, the Fourteenth (14th) Day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.165/2026

( Cr.No.249/2025 of Ongole Taluk Police Station)

Between:

Tuvvara Vamsi Krishna @ Jalsa Vamsi, S/o. Venkata Narasaiah, age: 28 years, Balaji Nagar, Nellore.… Petitioner/A2

And:

The State, SHO, Ongole Taluk PS, Rep. by Public prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This application came before me for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Srinivasa Rao and Shaik Karimullah, Advocatesfor Petitioner/A2 and of M.Ajoy Babu, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusal of the material available on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This is 4th bail application filed U/Sec.483 of Bharatiya Nagarika

Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, by the Petitioner/A2, praying for grant of bail in a case registered for the alleged offences punishable U/Secs.331(5), 103(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the following averments:

1.1) As per the Respondent the deceased is a rich man and doing liquor, sand and real estate businesses and active politician of T.D.P and he staying at Ongole. He is no other than nephew of former MLA and ZP

Chairperson. He has got number of enemies because of his businesses and he is a petition monger.

2 Crl.M.P.165/2026, PDJ, Ongole 1.2) There is no evidence against the Petitioner/A2 to connect with the incident. At the time of his arrest, his photographs were taken to enable the witnesses to identify him. CCTV footage collected by the

Investigating Officer goes to show that the assailants are wearing face masks. The investigation is tainted with political influence resulting in false implication of the petitioner. The case of prosecution is based on confessions. The entire political machinery of ruling party is behind the deceased. Except the confessional statement, no incriminating material is there against the Petitioner.

1.3) Petitioner was already taken into custody by the Respondent and was interrogated. Hence, the Petitioner is no more required by the police. As many as 30 witnesses are examined, identification proceedings have been completed. The Petitioner has got strong community ties and will not leave the jurisdiction as such there is no flight risk. Petitioner's earlier bail application was dismissed as some investigation is pending.

The Petitioner is in judicial custody from 15.05.2025 and the charge sheet is laid on 11.08.2025. Hence, the Petitioner may be granted bail.

2. Respondent contended that, as 1st accused is doing illegal sand business to which the deceased become hurdle, he consulted A6 and A7, who got enmity with the deceased and conspired together to kill the deceased and A1 hired A2 to A5 to kill the deceased with the help of A11 and his relative A12 and secured information about the movements of the deceased through A9 with the assistance of A10 and A11 and as per their plan, A2 to A5 killed the deceased in his office by stabbing indiscriminately, and four knives used by A2 to A5 and eight mobile phones were seized, and test identification was also conducted and that the Petitioner/A2 involved in six crimes if granted bail he may threaten 3 Crl.M.P.165/2026, PDJ, Ongole witnesses and try to tamper evidence, and investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and to verify the internal money transactions and for report of SFSL to retrieve data and to enalyse the same to bust up the conspiracy, and as the offence is heinous, bail cannot be granted.

3. Heard both sides, who reiterated their respective contentions.

4. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner/A2 can be granted bail?

5. Point:

5.1) According to the prosecution, A1 and A6 to A8 are friends and

A1 with the assistance of A9 and A10 and also A12 hired A2 to A5 to murder the deceased and accordingly A2 to A5 killed the deceased in his office by indiscriminately stabbing him. According to the Petitioner/A2, he is no way concerned with the offence, but was implicated in this case and as the deceased has got number of enemies somebody might have killed him, but he was implicated and that more than 30 witnesses are examined and he was enquired after taking into custody and except the alleged confession no material is there against him and he has got strong ties in the society and will not leave jurisdiction of Court and to avoid grant of mandatory bail prosecution filed charge sheet against him, but it was returned, and his earlier bail applications were dismissed on the ground of seriousness of the offence which cannot be sole ground to dismiss the petition.

5.2) Perusal of record shows that the Petitioner was arrested on 14.05.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. Though the prosecution alleged to have filed preliminary charge sheet the copy of it is not produced along with CD. Moreover, on enquiry, from III-Additional 4 Crl.M.P.165/2026, PDJ, Ongole

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ongole, it is learnt that the charge sheet which was represented on 05.01.2026 was again returned on 06.01.2026 and thereafter it was not re-submitted. Hence, it is clear that by the time of filing of this petition, charge sheet was not yet numbered and it is filed only to prevent grant of mandatory bail to the Petitioner. Moreover, even as per the submissions of Public Prosecutor, the investigation in this case is pending for examination of some more witnesses which suggests that the investigation is not yet completed though one year period is elapsed from the date of arrest Petitioner/A2.

5.3) Petitioner’s earlier bail applications were dismissed on the ground that if granted bail, Petitioner may threaten and coerce eye witnesses and if they did not hear succumb to his words, he may cause harm to the witnesses. The case of the Respondent mainly based on the alleged confession of the Petitioner/A2 and other co-accused which in fact not admissible in evidence. As the charge sheet is not yet numbered, there is no chance of proceeding with trial after commitment of case by keeping the Petitioner in judicial custody. The Petitioner undertakes to appear before Court on all adjournments and cooperate with police for completion of investigation pending if any. If the Petitioner on release on bail makes any attempt to threaten the witnesses or to interfere with the investigation, the prosecution is entitled to seek cancellation of the bail simply because some more cases are pending against accused, it cannot be a ground to deny bail to him as it amounts to pre-judge him. Hence, after taking the above circumstances particularly the fact that the charge sheet was not yet re-submitted to get numbered though the petitioner/A2 is in judicial custody for the last one year, I feel it just to grant conditional bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

5 Crl.M.P.165/2026, PDJ, Ongole

6. In the result, this petition is allowed ordering release of

Petitioner/A2 on bail on execution of bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of III-Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ongole. On such release, the Petitioner shall

appear before SHO, Ongole Taluk PS., on every Sunday for a period of three months or till numbering of charge sheet. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the Respondent for completion of investigation by appearing before him on receipt of two days notice.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer,corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 14th Day of May, 2026.

A.Satyanand (AP00251)

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam at Ongole

Copy to:

1. The III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

2. The Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station

3. Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for Petitioner/A2

4. The Public Prosecutor, Ongole

5. The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole //t.c.f.b.o//

Chief Administrative Officer

Principal District Court, Ongole

APPR000010332024

I N THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: ONGOLE.

Present : Smt. A.Satyanand,

Prl. District Judge, Ongole.

Friday the 8 th day of May, 2026

ARB. E.P.No.281/2024

ARC.No.660/2017

Between :-

M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited,Kandukur Branch, Rep. by its GPA holder/P.Sreenu Basha S/o.Khasim Khan, aged 47 years, R/o.Ongole. … DHr/Petitioner AND

1. Chadalawada Guravaiah S/o.Bala Guravaiah, aged 50 years, D.No.6-43, Near Government School, Kandukur Road, Sankavaram Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Yarramsetti Radha Krishna Rao S/o.Nagabhushanam, aged 52 years, H.No.1-17-9, Indira Colony 2nd line, Beside Counselor House, Kanigiri Post and Mandal, Prakasam District. Working as Health Assistant, Kanigiri Nagara Panchayat Office, Kanigiri Post and Mandal, Prakasam District. Prakasam District.

… Jdrs/Respondents

The petitioner filed this petition Under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of CPC and prays to issue notice to Jdr No.2 Under Order 21 Rule 22 and Rule 48 of CPC and call for his salary particulars through his garnishee thereafter enquiry issue salary attachment warrant against Jdr No.2 and thereafter send for the attached amount to this Court and pay the same to the Dhr towards realization of E.P. amount.

This petition is coming on this day before me for await of salary attachment of Jdr No.2 in the presence of Sri P.Sridhar, Advocate for D.Hr and J.Dr No.2 is remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following :-

// O R D E R //

Attachment warrant against salary of Jdr No.2 served on his garnishee on 2.2.2026. Garnishee already ordered deduction of attached amount from the salary of Jdr No.2 by his proceedings dt.7.2.2026 and marked copy to this Court. Hence, attachment is made absolute and EP is closed.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist directly on system, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-A.Satyanand

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/-A.S.,

P.D.J.

APPR000004932022

I N THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: ONGOLE.

Present : Smt. A.Satyanand,

Prl. District Judge, Ongole.

Friday the 8 th day of May, 2026

E.P.No.120/2022

ARC.No.476/2019

Between :-

M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Kandukur Branch, Rep. by its GPA holder/P.Sreenu Basha, S/o Khasim Khan, 47 years, R/o.Ongole.

… DHr/Petitioner AND

1. Pulagara Thirupalu S/o.P.Narasimha Rao, aged 40 years, D.No.18-79, Buchi Rajupalem Post, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. Working as Fitter 2, SSE Division/OH/PSI, South Central Railway, Ongole Railway Station, Ongole. Prakasam District.

2. Ravuri Ravi S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, aged 40 years, Working as Helper, Department-SSE(D)/OHE/PSL/OGL, Ongole Railway Station, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Jdrs/Respondents

The petitioner filed this petition Under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of CPC and prays to issue notice to Jdrs No.1 and 2 Under Order 21 Rule 48 of CPC and call for their salary particulars through their garnishee thereafter enquiry issue salary attachment warrant Jdrs No.1 and 2 and thereafter send for the attached amount to this Court and pay the same to the DHR towards realization of E.P. amount.

This petition is coming on this day before me for salary attachment against

Jdrs No.1 and 2 in the presence of Sri P. Sridhar, Advocate for D.Hr and J.Drs1 and No.2 are remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following :-

// O R D E R //

Attachment effected and garnishee of Jdrs No.1 and 2 are sending attached amounts. Attachment is made absolute and this EP is closed.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist directly on system, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-A.Satyanand

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/-A.S.,

P.D.J.

APPR000020612025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::

ONGOLE.

Present : Sri A.Satyanand

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Tuesday the 12 th day of May, 2026

Tr.Crl.M.P.11/2025

Between :-

Sikhakolli Srinivasa Rao S/o.Venkata Swamy, aged 58 years, Hindu, R/o.Vutukuri Vari Street, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District.

… Petitioner AND

1. Ronda Rama Krishna Reddy S/o.Lakshman Reddy, aged 72 years, Hindu, R/o.Santhi Nagar, Desaipeta, Vetapalem mandal, Bapatla District.

2. The State Represented by it’s Public Prosecutor, Ongole.

… Respondents

This is a petition filed Under Section 408 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner/accused prays to transfer the case in CC.No.131/2017 on the file of Additional Magistrate Court of I-Class,Chirala to Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Chirala or vice versa for conducting trial simultaneously, in the

interest of justice.

This Petition is coming on this day before me for issuing of notice to

Respondent No.1 on payment of process in the presence of Sri

P.L.Govindaiah, Advocate for Petitioner and the Learned Public Prosecutor/

Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

Petitioner counsel filed memo not pressing petition representing that

CC.No.131/2017 is disposed off. Memo recorded. This petition is dismissed

as not pressed by the petitioner.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist directly on system, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-A.Satyanand

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/-A.S.,

PD&SJ