B.babu Naik

Fair order1

BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE

FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Dr.N.Satya Sri, III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (Fast Track Court) In-charge/IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Ananthapuramu

Monday, this the 19 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.476/2026

[ in Cr.No. -- /2026 of Kuderu Police Station (unregistered crime ]

Between:

1.Chinthagunta Naveen Sai C/o Chinthagunta Mallikarjuna Rao, D.No.8-123/1, Railway Station Road, Vasavi Nagar, VCT Piduguralla Post, Palnadu District, A.P.

2. Chinthagunta Mallikarjuna Rao C/o C.Nagappa, D.NO.8/123-1, Railway Station Road, Vasavi Nagar, VCT Piduguralla Post, Palnadu District, A.P.

3.Chinthagunta Sujatha Kumar C/o C.Mallikarjuna Rao, D.NO.8/123-1, Railway Station Road, Vasavi Nagar, VCT Piduguralla Post, Palnadu District, A.P.

4.Chinthagunta Siva Naga Teja S/o Chinthagunta Mallikarjuna Rao, C/o C.Mallikarjuna Rao, D.No.8/123-1, Railway Station Road, Vasavi Nagar, VCT Piduguralla Post, Palnadu District, A.P. --- Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4

AND State represented by Station House Officer, Kuderu Police Station --- Respondent/Complainant

Fair order2

This petition came up before this court on 18.05.2026 in the presence of Sri E.Balakrishna Advocate for Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 and

Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent/Complainant/State and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

- : O R D E R :-

1.This anticipatory bail application is filed by Petitioners/Accused

No.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Barathiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (herein after referred as BNSS for brevity) with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in unregistered crime of Kuderu Police Station.

2.The petitioners filed this petition that defacto complainant showed them as accused in her allegations, first petitioner is her husband , 2nd and 3rd petitioners are her in-laws and 4th petitioner is her brother-in-law, they apprehend illegal detention by police on false charges of offences punishable under Sections 85, 351 and 79 r/w 62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (herein after BNS for brevity). The petitioners contended that due to political background of defacto complainant, she might have influenced police due to which police called them twice to Police Station, threatened and influenced them to agree to the terms of defacto complainant else to implicate all of them in false cases, hence they apprehend detention or arrest due to which they have to forego their rights over ancestral properties and they are implicated to them evade repayment of Rs.6,50,000/- owed by father defacto complainant and thus trying to implicate them falsely in criminal case. Hence this petition to enlarge them on bail in the event of their arrest.

3.Notice is given to Special Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard both sides.

5.The counsel for Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 submitted that in anticipation of illegal detention by police, petitioners filed this petition, defacto complainant gave report to police, as such, police illegally called them and detained them, moreover they are residents of Pidugurall Town and police are calling them to Police Station twice in a week and under these circumstances, petitioners are forced to file this petition as it is im-practicable to come to

Fair order3

Ananthapuramu twice in a week. The counsel further submitted that without following due process of law police personnel have repeatedly called them over phone i.e. Sub Inspector of Police and Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and compelling them to appear without issuance of summons in collusion with defacto complainant. The counsel for petitioners also filed judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme court of India between Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs

State of Bunjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632. The counsel for petitioners also filed written arguments along with what sapp screen shots showing calls that they received from police personnel. Hence counsel for Petitioners/Accused submitted to enlarge the Petitioners/ Accused No. 1 to A4 on anticipatory bail on any conditions. In the event of their arrest.

6.The Special Public Prosecutor filed memo that no criminal case is registered against petitioners.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

1.“Whether Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest?

2.To what relief?

POINT No.1.

8. Perused the petition, written arguments and memo filed by the prosecution. It is settled law that blanket order of bail in the event of arrest can not be granted. Prosecution also filed memo that no crime is registered against the petitioners. From the memo filed by the prosecution this court can not ascertain whether defacto complainant/ wife of Accused No.1 gave any report to police or otherwise. It is evident from the memo filed by counsel for petitioners that several calls have been made from the mobile number shown therein between the period 3rd May to 8th May, 2026 which needs to be further enquired by the concerned. Since this court does not have sufficient material,

The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu District is directed to cause

Fair order4 enquiry whether alleged defacto complainant gave any report to police personnel either oral or written and whether police personnel have followed due process of law and is also directed to issue suitable instructions to all the

Police Mersonnel to follow procedure prescribed as per Law and under police manual and ensure that if no report is lodged against petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 herein, direct concerned police not to harass the petitioners herein and also ascertain whats app scree shorts filed into the court about the calls made from mobile number reflecting therein and consider appropriate action if concerned police personnel have acted beyond their duties without following the prescribed procedure. Since no crime is registered against the

Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 and this court does not even have any material if alleged defacto complainant gave any report, this court is not inclined to grant bail to them in the event of their arrest. Point answered accordingly.

POINT NO.2

9.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu for consideration.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of May, 2026

Sd/- Dr.N.Satya Sri,

III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu Incharge/IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Ananthapuramu

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Ananthaprumu.

1

BEFORE THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPL.

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Sri B.Babu Naik,

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Ananthapuramu

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.408/2026

[ in Cr.No.31/2026 of Vajrakarur PS ]

Between: Nallabothula Vannurswamy (A1), S/o. Nallabothula Laleppa, Aged 41 years, R/o. D.No.3/4, SC Colony, Kamalapadu village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. --- Petitioner/Accused

AND

State rep. by S.H.O., Vajrakarur P.S. --- Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Narayanaswamy, Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 and Sri R.Veeranjineyulu, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State, upon hearing both the counsels and upon perusal of the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

- : O R D E R :-

1.This is the application filed U/s. 482 BNSS to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/A1 in Cr.No.31/2026 of Vajrakarur PS for the offence punishable u/s. 85, 108 r/w 3 (5) of BNS.

2.The prosecution case in brief is that:-

The deceased Nallabothula Adilakshmi is the wife of the petitioner/A1.

Their marriage was solemnized about 19 years ago and they lived happily for over 10 years and blessed with two children. The petitioner/A1 along with Latha (A2) and Lalu Swamy (A3) were ling in Hyderabad by collecting debris, there are disputes between her son and the petitioner and A2 and A3 and in that 2 aspect the petitioner used to scold the deceased, harassed her physically and mentally. On 25.03.2026 at about 12.00 Noon, being disgusted on her life, the deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison, immediately she was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Guntakal and from there to Govt. Hospital, Kurnool, but on 26.03.2026 at about 7.14 PM the deceased died while undergoing treatment. Basing on the complaint of mother of the deceased, the case was registered.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offence and falsely implicated in the case without any iota of evidence and simply basing on the alleged complaint give by the mother of the deceased. The petitioner did not commit any offence, the entire investigation is completed and material witnesses were examined and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused.

4.Notice was given to the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, who opposed the petition and contended that the investigation pending for examination of some more witnesses, arrest of the accused and RFSL report is awaited and prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Heard Counsel for the petitioner/accused and Spl. Public Prosecutor.

6.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the petitioners/A1 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage?

POINT:

7.Perused the material placed before the Court including case diary, prima facie disclose that the deceased was subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment by the petitioner and other accused. It further discloses that immediately prior to the incident, the deceased was allegedly harassed in 3 connection with family disputes and due to such harassment she consumed poison and died.

8. The allegations in the complaint and the statements collected during investigation disclose prima facie material against the petitioner. The death of the deceased occurred within the matrimonial relationship and the allegations relate to continuous harassment and abetment leading to suicide. Such allegations require thorough investigation.

9. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s son gave a representation against the relatives of the deceased, the same is a matter for investigation and trial. At this stage, the said representation itself cannot be treated as a ground to grant anticipatory bail, particularly when the prosecution has placed prima facie material showing involvement of the petitioner.

10. The investigation is admittedly still pending. The prosecution specifically stated that some witnesses are yet to be examined and RFSL report is awaited.

The case diary also reveals that the accused are absconding after registration of the crime. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner may influence or threaten witnesses cannot be ignored at this stage, especially when the witnesses are closely related family members residing in the same locality.

11.Considering the nature and gravity of accusations, the stage of investigation, and the possibility of interference with investigation, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

4

12.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Sri B.Babu Naik

IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Spl. Judge, for trial of cases against Women, Ananthapuramu.

1 Fair order

BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE

FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Dr.N.Satya Sri, III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (Fast Track Court) In-charge/IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Ananthapuramu

Monday, this the 19 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.465/2026

[ in Cr.No.17/2026 of Kalyanadurg Upgrade Police Station in S.C.No.49/2026 ]

Between:

Urimundara Nagabhushana @ Boya Nagabhusana, Aged 49 years S/o Late U. Mareppa, R/o Santhekondapuram village, Bramhasamudram Mandal, Now residing at Inidramma Colony, Kalyandurgam --- Petitioner/Accused.

AND State represented by Station House Officer, Kalyandurgam U.P.S. --- Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before this court on 18.05.2026, in the presence of

Sri.P.Thimmappa Chowdary, Advocate for Petitioner/Accused and Special

Public Prosecutor for Respondent/ complainant/State, and upon perusal of entire material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

- : O R D E R :-

1.This is the 5th bail application filed by Petitioner/Accused under Section 483 of Barathiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2024 (herein after referred as

BNSS for brevity) with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.17/2026 of

Kalyandurgam Upgrade Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 109 of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (herein after referred as BNS for brevity).

2 Fair order

2.Basing on the report of Defacto Complainant a case in Cr.No. 17/2026 was registered under Sections 85 and 109 of BNS. After completion of investigation police filed charge sheet, after committal of the case in PRC 5/2026, Sections Case was numbered as S.C.49/2026 by The Principle District and Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu. The allegation against accused is that he harassed his wife physically and mentally prior to 6 months of 01.02.2026, also attacked and attempted to kill his wife with a sickle and caused bleeding injuries to her head as accused suspected fidelity of his wife. Petitioner/accused was arrested and sent to remand on 02.02.2026. Hence this petition.

3.Notice is issued to Special Public Prosecutor.

4.Heard both sides.

5.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge sheet is filed and

Sessions Case is numbered.

6.The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet is filed.

7.Now the point for determination is;

1. Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of regular bail at this stage?

2. To what relief?

POINT No.1:

8.Perused the record. As seen from the material on record, accused is of ferocious nature, developed suspicion over fidelity of his wife, harassed and threatened her, chased her and attacked her on the date of incident and with a sickle attacked her on the back side of her head and if petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, there is likely hood of threat to the life of victim. Further,

Sessions Case is also numbered and accused reported no means to engage

counsel and as such this court addressed a letter for appointment of Legal Aid

Counsel. Hence, this court is not inclined to enlarge petitioner/accused on bail.

Point answered accordingly.

3 Fair order

8.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of May, 2026

Sd/- Dr.N.Satya Sri

III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu Incharge/IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Ananthapuramu