Ms. A.Vasanthi

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT NARASAPUR

Present: Dr. B.Lakshmi Narayana

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram, FAC/ X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasapur.

Monday, the 16th day of June, 2025

Crl.M.P.No.191/2025

(Crime No.64/2025 of Elamanchili Police Station)

Between:

Bathula Bharathi, W/o Yesudasu @ Peddabbulu @ Peddodu @ Pedda, 54 Years, SC (Mala), R/o D.No.2-108, Kattavari Puntha,Kontheru (V), Elamanchili Mandal.

… Petitioner/Accused No.2 A N D

State- The Station House Officer, Elamanchili Police Station.

… Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri R.V.Satyanarayana,Advocate for the Petitioner and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and upon hearing their arguments, this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is bail application filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 under Section 483 of BNSS seeking him to enlarge on bail in Crime

No.64/2025 of Elamanchili Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 103 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that :

On 23.4.2025 at about 8 PM, the defacto complainant, her husband and grandsons had dinner went to bed while husband in one 2 bed room, grandsons in one bed room while she was in the hall and at about 8.50 AM, as somebody knocked the doors, opened the doors, then the accused and his wife shouted against her made house trespass by pushed her aside entered the house and as they went to the bed room of her husband, she raised loud alarm. Then her grandson Ananda Prakash came and when they rushed to the bedroom of her husband, they noticed while Bharathi hold the legs of her husband tightly then Yesudasu hacked on her husband with knife on his left side of the neck and when her husband raised his hands to resist the accused, sustained cut injuries on his right fingers and also left shoulder blade and the accused hacked on her husband thrice and when they tried to resist them, the accused showing the knife threatened that they would kill them, ran away from the spot with the knife and thereafter on hearing her loud alarm, her son in law

Chilakapati Chinna came and her husband due to severe bleeding injury hacked by the accused struggling with his life died at the spot and thus, A.1 armed with knife (coconut cutting knife) accompanied by his wife A.2, trespassed into their house, pushed her aside, entered bed room of the deceased, while A.2 hold legs of the deceased tightly, A.1 hacked him on his left side of the neck with knife thrice and also on right fingers, left shoulder blade and done him to death. The material allegations against A.2 in the written complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, FIR and the remand report are not true and correct. A.2 never committed any offence as stated by the Police. A.2 is suffering from chronic disease and she is having old aged parents-in-laws and suffering from chronic diseases. A.2 is having both movable and immovable properties in Kattavari Puntha of Konteru Village and she is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court.

3

Investigation in this case almost all completed except pending to file charge sheet. Hence, requested for granting of bail.

3. Notice given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The Point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner/Accused No.2 is entitled to be enlarged on bail as prayed by her?

6. P O I N T:- The petitioner/A.2 filed this petition to enlarge her on bail who was remanded to judicial custody on 25.4.2025 for the offences under Sections 329(4), 103 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

7. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and not committed any offence as alleged against him. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted most of the investigation is completed except filing the charge sheet and he is having no criminal antecedents so far. Moreover, the investigation in this crime is pending. On consider the nature of the offence as well as the contents of the report, it is not safe to released the petitioner. There is every chance to give a threaten against defacto complainant and victim. Hence, this Court not found any merits to grant bail at this stage to the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8. In the result, petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16 th day of June, 2025.

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram. FAC/X Additional District and Sessions Judge, N a r a s a

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT NARASAPUR

Present: Dr. B.Lakshmi Narayana

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram, FAC/ X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasapur.

Monday, the 16th day of June, 2025

Crl.M.P.No.192/2025

(Crime No.82/2025 of Mogaltur Police Station)

Between:

1.Bandana Ramesh, S/o Venkateswarlu, 35 Years, Male, Daily Wage Earner, Gedela Vampu, Mutyalapalli Village, Mogalthur Mandal, W.G.Dt.

2.Bandana Venkateswarlu, S/o Sarabandu, 55 Years, Male, Daily Wage Earner, Gedela Vampu, Mutyalapalli Village, Mogalthur Mandal, W.G.Dt.

3.Bandana Parvathi @ Lanke Parvathi, W/o Venkateswarlu (As per Adhar W/o Sahadevudu), 45 Years, Female, Daily Wage Earner, Gedela Vampu, Mutyalapalli Village, Mogalthur Mandal, W.G.Dt.

… Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3

A N D

State- The Station House Officer, Mogaltru Police Station, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri Amareswara Rao.K,Advocate for the Petitioners and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and upon hearing their arguments, this Court made the following:

2

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is 2nd bail application filed by the Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 under Section 483 of BNSS seeking them to enlarge on bail in Crime

No.82/2025 of Mogaltur Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 108 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that :

The complainant/ police have arrested the petitioners/A.1 to

A.3 on 11.4.2025 under Sections 85, 108 r/w 3(5) of BNS and they are now in Hon’ble Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasapur custody being remanded to

judicial custody. The petitioners are innocent and has got valid legal grounds in support of their innocence. The offence is not punishable with any extreme penalty of death or imprisonment for life in the alternative. The petitioners come from respectable family. A.2 is suffering from blood pressure and diabetic patient hence need daily medicines and medical consultation while A2 and A3 depend on A1 hard earnings only. The conclusion of the proceedings may take reasonably long time and they will have to languish in jail for no fault of their own.

The continued detention of the petitioners in jail will adversely reflect on their physical and mental health. The petitioners are ready to furnish self bond as security to the satisfaction of the court to ensure their regular attendance. The petitioners undertake to abide by the terms/any condition that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Previous bail petitions i.e., Crl.M.P.Nos.171/2025 and 172/2025 were dismissed by the Hon’ble Court on 6.5.2025. Hence, requested for granting of bail.

3. Notice given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3

4. Heard both sides.

5. The Point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 are entitled to

be enlarged on bail as prayed by them?

6. P O I N T:- The petitioners/A.1 to A.3 filed this petition to enlarge them on bail who were remanded to judicial custody on 11.4.2025 for the offences under Sections 85, 108 r/w 3(5) of BNS. This is the 2nd bail application filed by the petitioners and the 1st bail applications i.e., Crl.M.P.Nos.171/2025 and 172/2025 were dismissed on 6.5.2025.

7. On consider the totality of the circumstances and the prolonged period of judicial remand, this Court taken lenient view to grant the bail as pleased by the petitioners. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.In the result, petition is allowed by granting bail for petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 on the following conditions:

i) The petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 shall release on bail on their executing self bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

ii) The petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 shall appear before the

Station House Officer concerned on every Sunday in between 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon till charge sheet is filed or for a period of six weeks, whichever is earlier.

4 iii) The petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 shall shall cooperate with the investigation pending if any.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16 th day of June, 2025.

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram. FAC/X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasapur.

Copy to:

1.The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Narasapur.

The Advocate for the petitioners/Accused 1 to 3. 2.

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT NARASAPUR

Present: Dr. B.Lakshmi Narayana

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram, FAC/ X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasapur.

Monday, the 16th day of June, 2025

Crl.M.P.No.193/2025

(Crime No.20/2025 of Achanta Police Station)

Between:

1.Kondeti Naga Raju @ Dada, S/o Peddi Raju, 30 Years, SC (Madiga), D.No.2-4/1, Settibalija Colony, Karugorumilli (V), Achanta (M), Now at Peda Tadepalli (V), Tadepalligudem (M).

2.Karri Sai Chandra Reddy, S/o Rama Krishna Reddy, 31 Years, Reddy, Originally native of Velagalavaripalem (V), Penumantra (M), Now at Yallamilli Stage, Peda Tadepalli (V), Tadepalligudem (M).

3.Shaik Fakruddin, S/o Nayab Rasul, 29 Years, Muslim, Mulapeta, Neelagiri Sangham, Nellore Town.

4.Arjuna Gnana Prakash, S/o Mani, 25 Years, Gowda, Girijana Colony 1st Ward, Yellaiahpalem (V), Kadaluru (M), Nellore District.

5.Linguberi Rambabu, S/o Lakshmana Rao, 28 Years, Gowda, Kotha Kaluva (V), Mypadu (M), Nellore District.

… Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5

A N D

State- The Station House Officer, Achanta Police Station.

… Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri B.Suneel,Advocate for the Petitioners and of

Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and upon hearing their

arguments, this Court made the following:

2

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is 4th bail application filed by the Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 under Section 483 of BNSS seeking them to enlarge on bail in Crime

No.20/2025 of Achanta Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 332(2), 310(2) and 311 of BNS and

Section 25(1A) and (1AAA) of Arms Act, 1959.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that :

There are no allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 61(2), 332(2), 310(2) and 311 of BNS and Section 25(1A) and (1AAA) of Arms Act, 1959 of

Achanta Police Station. The entire investigation in this case is completed. The petitioners having permanent residence in the above addresses as such there is no chance of absconding. The petitioners did not commit any above said offence. Police were created a false allegation. The petitioner/A.1 wife born one female child, present she is in government Hospital and she did not have any supporting family members. Due to they had love marriage with different religions, because their family members not support to her and accused also. The petitioners are only earning persons in their families. The accused have small children and also old age parents. The petitioners are ready to furnish the reasonable sureties as directed by the Hon’ble Court. The 1st bail application was dismissed by this

Hon’ble Court in

Crl.M.P.No.24/2025 on 11.4.2025, the 2nd bail application was dismissed

by this Hon’ble Court in Crl.M.P.No.29/2025 on 29.4.2025 and the 3rd bail application was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court in

Crl.M.P.No.36/2025 on 20.5.2025. Hence, the petitioners filed the 4th

bail application. Hence, requested for granting of bail.

3

3. Notice given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The Point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 are entitled to

be enlarged on bail as prayed by them?

6. P O I N T:- The petitioners/A.1 to A.5 filed this petition to enlarge them on bail who were remanded to judicial custody on 14.3.2025 for the offences under Sections 61(2), 332(2), 310(2) and 311 of BNS and Section 25(1A) and (1AAA) of Arms Act, 1959. This is the 4th bail application filed by the petitioners and previous bail applications i.e., Crl.M.P.Nos.24/2025, 29/2025 and 36/2025 were dismissed on 11.4.2025, 29.4.2025 and 20.5.2025.

7. On consider the totality of the circumstances and the prolonged period of judicial remand, this Court taken lenient view to grant the bail as pleased by the petitioners. Accordingly, this point is answered. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8. In the result, petition is allowed by granting bail for petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 on their executing self bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16 th day of June, 2025.

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram. FAC/X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasapur.

4

Copy to:

1.The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.

The Advocate for the petitioners/Accused 1 to 5. 2.

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, NARSAPUR

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Present : Ms.A.VASANTHI

X Addl District Judge, Narsapur

Friday this the 2nd day of May, 2025

OS.NO. 08 of 2024

Between :

Sanamanda Ebenazer, S/o.Sanamanda Eliya (Late), Male, Christian, Age 54 years, Resident of Door.No.47-2-48, Betheleham peta, Palakol, W.G.Dist., …… Plaintiff

A N D

Namuduri Venkata Surya Ganapathi Rao, S/o.Venkata Somayajulu, Male, Hindu, Age 73 years, Plot.No.212, Lakshmi Kubera Apartments, beside Veera Hanuman Theatre, Sriram peta, V.T.C, Palakol, W.G.Dist.,

….. Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for Specific performance of agreement of sale

dated 04-07-2019 directing the defendant to register sale deed in his favour by

receiving the balance sale consideration and for costs in alternative for refund of an amount of Rs.57,76,200/- with subsequent interest and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day 02-05-2025 before me in the presence of Sri

N.V.Suryanarayana and U.Satyanarayana, Advocates for Plaintiff and of Sri

Nidumolu Jnananand, Advocate for Defendant and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff filed a memo stating that suit is not pressing as matter is settled before elders, memo recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed as withdrawn and no costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2025.

Sd/-Ms.A.VASANTHI

X Addl District Judge,

NARSAPUR.

Note :The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all Exhibits which they wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

In the Court of :X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

Case No. :CRLMP.BAIL/0000039/2025 Nelapudi Yesu Ratnam Vs State SHO Narsapur Town Police Station

Date : 16-06-2025

Business: Petitioner called absent. No representation called again called 2.00 pm. As per memo dated 02-06-2025 petitioner not pressed the petition. Heard petition dismissed as not prosecution. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED Disposal Date: 16-06-2025

X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE