Smt. B.Nirmala

1

APEG010074062025

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN :: EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala, VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram.

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

D.O.P.No. 21/2026

Between :

1.Janipalli Sunny Uday Kiran, S/o. Samuel Sunny Babu @ Sanny Babu, aged 40 years, employee, Flat No.A.6, Sivaji Towers, Sriramnagar, Rajamahendravaram.

2.Janipalli (Boosi) Swathi, W/o. Sunny Uday Kiran, Sofewear, aged 34 years, employee, D.No.21-5-6, Korlampeta, Rajamahendravaram. … Petitioners

And

Nil … Respondent

This Petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. K.V.V.S. Prabhakar and Sri S. David Samuel, Advocates for the Petitioners; and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 10 (A) of

Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent 2 by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners held on 01.06.2019 at Church of Shalom of Nethanys, A.V.Apparao road,

Rajamahendravaram and for other reliefs.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that:

The marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 was performed on 01.06.2019 at Church of Shalom of Nethanys, A.V.Apparao road,

Rajamahendravaram as per Christian Marriage Act and customs.

Soon after the marriage, petitioners joined together at Hyderabad and started living as wife and husband. Both petitioners lived happily for a very short time. Thereafter since suspicion arose to 2nd petitioner about his fidelity. Thereafter the war of words exchanged between the parties. Soon some misunderstandings cropped up between them.

The 2nd petitioner was sent to her parent’s house during the month of August, 2020. Since then both parties living separately at their respective parents house. During the month of September the 1st petitioner sent a legal notice to the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner sent a reply to that notice on 14.09.2020. Thereafter the 2nd petitioner presented a report to women Police Station,

Rajamahendravaram and the same was numbered as C.C.1163/2020 on the file of IV Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

3

During the pendency to the said C.C.1163/2020, the elders interested on both parties convened a joint meeting and they came to a conclusion that the misunderstandings between the petitioners could not be cropped up and advised them to separate from each other by filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent.

The 1st petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the 2nd petitioner claims of maintenance etc. and the 2nd petitioner agreed to receive the same.

The 2nd petitioner also agreed to withdraw the D.V.C.50/2022 filed

before the Hyderabad court and also to be cooperate to withdraw the

criminal case. There are no issues for the parties during the wedlock.

Both parties last lived together at Hyderabad and separated at

Rajamahendravaram. Hence the petition.

3. In support of the case, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P1 to P5 documents were marked.

4.Heard both sides and posted for orders.

5. The point for consideration is ;

Whether the petitioners are entitled for

mutual divorce as prayed for?

6.On perusal of record, both the petitioners are legally wedded couple whose marriage was performed on 01-06-2019 at Church of

Shalom of Nethanys, A.V.Apparao Road, Rajahmundry as per Chr as per Christian custom and rites. On coming to the fact of the marriage, 4 the petitioners filed the documents i.e., Wedding card, marriage certificate, two marriage photographs along with C.D. relating to petitioners, copies of Aadhar Cards of petitioners 1 and 2 before the

Court and they are marked as Exs.P1 to P5. It is further case that they have been living separately since two years.

7.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, they have been living separately for the last five years. They also deposed that there is no possibility of any reconciliation or re-union between them and they have decided to take divorce from Court of law. It is also found that the 2nd petitioner received all her belongings including permanent alimony from the 1st petitioner in the presence of elders and relatives. Thus, both the petitioners came to an understanding that they will not file any claims against each other at present and in future. Therefore, the above arrangement between both the petitioners shows that there is no collusion in between them and there is no chance of re-union in between them.

8.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, they have been living separately for about last five years. They also deposed that there is no possibility of any reconciliation or re-union between them and they have decided to take divorce from Court of law.

9.It is also found that the matter was posted after 6 months from the date of registration and in-spite of giving above reasonable period as cooling off period and though the matter was referred to 5 mediation, there is no change in their decision and they re-iterated their intention for divorce from Court of law. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances, this Court feels that if no divorce is granted no useful purpose would be served since they have been living separately for about last five years. Hence, the point is answered accordingly by holding that the petitioners are entitled for divorce on mutual consent.

10.In the result , the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioners 1 and 2 that took place on 01-06-2019 on the ground of mutual consent.

Under the above facts and circumstances no costs are awarded.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

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

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1: Janipalli Sunny Uday Kiran -- None -- P.W.2: Janipalli (Boosi) Swathi,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Marriage certificate dt.01.06.2019 relates to petitioners Ex. P2: Marriage wedding card relates to petitioners Ex.P3: Marriage photos relates to petitioners Ex.P4: Copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner (Compared with original) Ex.P5: Copy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner (Compared with original)

FOR RESPONDENT: -- NIL –

VIII ADJ.

6

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN :: EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala, VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram.

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

D.O.P.No. 21/2026

Between :

1.Janipalli Sunny Uday Kiran, S/o. Samuel Sunny Babu @ Sanny Babu, aged 40 years, employee, Flat No.A.6, Sivaji Towers, Sriramnagar, Rajamahendravaram.

2.Janipalli (Boosi) Swathi, W/o. Sunny Uday Kiran, Sofewear, aged 34 years, employee, D.No.21-5-6, Korlampeta, Rajamahendravaram. … Petitioners

And

Nil … Respondent

This a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 10 (A) of

Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners held on 01.06.2019 at Church of Shalom of Nethanys, A.V.Apparao road,

Rajamahendravaram and for other reliefs.

Cause of action for the petition arose on 01.06.2023 when the marriage between the petitioners took place at church of Shalom of

Nethanys, A.V.Apparao road, Rajamahendravaram as per Christian rites and caste customs, since August, 2020 both petitioners stared living separately from August 2020 causing misunderstandings arose between them which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

7

On which a Court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Schedule II,

Article 1 (III) of A.P.C.F. and S.V Act.

This Petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. K.V.V.S. Prabhakar and Sri S. David

Samuel, Advocates for the Petitioners; and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court DOTH ORDER AND

DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed;

2.that the decree of divorce be and the same is hereby granted by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioners 1 and 2 that took place on 01.06.2019 on the ground of mutual consent;

3.that there shall be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 8th day of may, 2026.

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Particulars of costs. No costs memo filed on either side.

VIII A.D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT : Smt.B.NIRMALA

Principal Junior Civil Judge Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram

Friday, the 19th day of July, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.479/2019

Between:

Bank of Baroda, Kothapalli (previously Vijaya Bank) Rep.by its Branch Manager, Suresh Yambadi, S/o Y.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 35 years, r/o Kothapalli.

...Plaintiff.

And:

1. Bhuthukuri Radhakrishna, S/o Veeraraghava, Hindu, aged 39 years, r/o Peda Ramalayam street, Dr.No.2-122, Kamarajupeta, Gokavaram mandal.

2. Bhuthukuri Surya Kumari, D/o Pilli Lakshmi Devi, Hindu, aged 54 years, r/o Peda Ramalayam street, Dr.No.2-122, Kamarajupeta, Gokavaram mandal.

..Defendants

This suit coming on 19.07.2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Srimannarayana Murthy, Advocate for plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree in favor of plaintiff against the 1st defendant personally and against 2nd defendant on the assets of deceased Pilli Lakshmi Devi in the hands of defendant No.2 for recovery of suit amount I.e, Rs.8,09,457/- together with subsequent interest and for costs and other reliefs.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The 1st defendant and Pilli Lakshmi Devi availed loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff or agricultural purposes and executed loan agreement cum Hypothecation deed on 05.09.2015 in favour of plaintiff agreeing inter alia to repay the same together with interest at 10.55% p.a. with half yearly rests. On 1.12.2016 the 1st defendant and P.lakshmi Devi gave letters of debt confirmation to the plaintiff acknowledging the debt. Said Pilli Lakshmi Devi died recently leaving her daughter 2nd defendant herein and her grand son 1st defendant as her legal heirs . The defendants as legal heirs of principal borrower I.e Pilli Lakshmi Devi are liable to pay the debt due to the plaintiff bank. On 07.09.2018 the legal heirs of Pilli Lakshmi gave letter of debt confirmation to the plaintiff acknowledging the debt. While so, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants failed to pay the debt due to the plaintiff. On 08.04.2019 the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to the defendants demanding to repay the debt amount but the defendants did not comply with the demands of the plaintiff bank. The 2 defendant is not entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 or any other debt relief Laws. Hence the suit.

3. In this particular suit, in spite of summons served to the defendants they failed to appear before this court and accordingly this court considered the defendants as set exparte on 16.07.2019. This court after believes that the 1st and 2nd defendants have no case in favour of them to advocate their case before this court of law, posted for plaintiff side evidence.

4. In view of that, plaintiff filed chief affidavit on behalf of her and the same is treated as chief examination. Accordingly, Exs. A.1 to A.7 I.e, Ex.A.1 loan agreement cum hypothecation deed dt.04.08.015 executed by the 1st defendant and P.Lakshmi Devi , Ex.A.2 debt confirmation letter dated 1.12.2016 by the 1st defendant and P.lakshmi Devi, Ex.A.3 debt confirmation letter dated 7.9.2018 by the defendants 1 and 2, Ex.A.4 office copy of legal notice dt. 8.4.2019 got issued by the plaintiff, Ex.A.5 postal acknowledgement of 1st defendant, Ex.A.6 postal acknowledgement of 2nd defendant and Ex.A.7 account copy were got marked.

5. This court perused Ex.A.1 to A.7 and arrived at a conclusion that the defendants executed Exs.A.1 to A.3 in favour of plaintiff bank and failed to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff.

6. In this particular case, the defendants bitterly failed to advocate their case and no rebuttal evidence has been brought before this court to disprove the contentions of plaintiff. Therefore, this court has to presumed that Exs.A.1 to A.7 are true and conveniently an adverse inference has been drawn against the defendant. Accordingly, this court on drawn such inference, believes that defendants could not clear the debt due and the defendant are liable to pay the due amount to the plaintiff.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff, against the defendants 1 and 2 to pay to the plaintiff bank an amount of Rs.8,09,457/-(Rupees eight lakhs nine thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realization. The 2nd defendant is liable to pay the amount from the estate of deceased Pilli Lakshmi which is in the hands of 2nd defendant.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 19th day of July, 2019.

Prl. Junior Civil judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff :

P.W.1 Suresh Yambadi 3

For defendant: None

Exhibits marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 loan agreement cum hypothecation deed dt.04.08.015 executed by the 1st defendant and P.Lakshmi Devi.

Ex.A.2 debt confirmation letter dated 1.12.2016 by the 1st defendant and P.lakshmi Devi.

Ex.A.3 debt confirmation letter dated 7.9.2018 by the defendants 1 and 2.

Ex.A.4 office copy of legal notice dt. 8.4.2019 got issued by the plaintiff

Ex.A.5 postal acknowledgement of 1st defendant,

Ex.A.6 postal acknowledgement of 2nd defendant

Ex.A.7 account copy

For defendants: Nil

Sd/-B.Nirmala

Prl. Junior Civil judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram 4

1

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :: EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala, VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram. Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No. 510 /2026

(Cr.No. 41 /2026 of Seethanagaram P.S.)

Between:-

Sodadasi Seetharama Raju @ Pandu, S/o. Raju, Hindu, aged 36 years, D.NO.4-116, Subbaraopeta, Bobbililanka

village, Sithanagaram Mandal...Petitioner/A1

AND

State: S.H.O., Seethanagaram P.S. ..Respondent/

complainant.

This is the 3 rd bail petition is coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. P. Nanda Kishore, Advocate for the petitioner/A1 and Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and upon hearing their arguments this court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The petitioner/A1 seeking regular bail under section 483 of B.N.S.S. by filing this bail application relating to Crime No.41/2026 registered for the offence under sections 103(1), 332, 127(2) r/w.3(5) of BNS, which is registered by the respondent/complainant.

2.The complainant's case, in brief, are as follows:-

i) The complainant Gummadi Vara Prasad @ Yesu resident of Subbaraopeta, Bobbililanka village reported that due to strained marital relations between his elder sister Latha and her husband Sodadasi Seetharama Raju they were separated in the presence of elders. Thereafter, Seetharama Raju contacted a second marriage. Since the separation, his elder sister had been residing with the complainant and other family members at Subba Raopeta. However, Seetharama Raju was unable to reconcile himself to the fact that his former wife was living peacefully with her parental family, nurturing a grudge against her, he had on several occasions threatened to eliminate her. While matter stood thus on the night of 02.03.2026 at 2 11.00 pm, the accused Sodadasi Seetharama Raju @ Pandu along with his associates A2 Sodadasi Ramesh @ Chinna, A3 and A4 criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house, A1 picked up a quarrel with Latha and in a brutal and indiscriminate manner hacked her on the neck with a knife, resulting in her instantaneous death at the scene. When their mother attempted to intervene and prevent the attack, the accused also hacked her on the neck, causing her instantaneous death. When the complainant and his younger sibling attempted to rescue the victims and intervene in the assault, the remaining A2 to A4 wrongfully confined them, thereby facilitating the commission of offence. Hence the complaint.

ii) On receipt of report of complainant, a case in Cr.No.41/2026 was registered by the respondent/complainant under Sec.103(1), 332, 127(2) r/w.3(5) of B.N.S. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer arrested the petitioner/A1 on 04.03.2026 and when he was produced before learned VII Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, accordingly, the petitioner was

remanded to judicial custody.

3.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the state, the point for determination

is:-

"Whether petitioner/A1 is entitled for the relief of

regular bail as prayed for in the petition or not"?

POINT:

4.Upon careful perusal of First Information Report and prosecution record i.e. C.D. available before this court, upon careful perusal of contents of report submitted by the complainant and also other relevant record as well as Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the police, I found that basing on the statement of complainant, the investigating agency registered a case in crime No.41/2026 under sections 332,103(1) and 127(2) r/w.3 (5) of B.N.S., against the petitioner/A1.

5.Further as seen from the case record and part-I & II C.D. and First Information Report and other record available before the court, I have clearly noted that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer has examined 10 witnesses and also recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

3

6.Further, I noted that the material so far gathered by the investigating agency during the course of investigation are clearly discloses prima facie case and as well as prima facie incriminating material against the petitioner.

7. The material so far gathered by the investigating officer during the course of investigation discloses prima facie allegations against the petitioner. As the petitioner /accused along with other accused committed criminal trespassed into the complainant’s house , picked up a quarrel with Latha and in a brutal and indiscriminate manner hacked her on the neck with a knife, resulting in her instantaneous death at the scene, when their mother attempted to intervene and prevent the attack, the accused also hacked her on the neck, causing her instantaneous death.

8.Further I have clearly noted that the effective investigation is very essential in this case as per the version of the prosecution by reason that the investigation is not yet completed. The prima facie incriminating material available in record are very clearly reveals that the investigation of the case is not yet

completed and charge sheet is also not filed and also there is no change of

circumstances from the date of disposal of earlier applications to this

application. So on considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner/A1, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused at this stage, hence I am not inclined to allow the petition.

9.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/Smt. B. Nirmala, VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum

Special Judge for trial of offences against women,

Rajamahendravaram. Copy to: The S.H.O., Seethanagaram PS The counsel for the petitioner

//t.c.f.b.o//

4

1

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :: EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram.

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No. 471 /2026

(Cr.No. 14 /2026 of Proh. & Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South)

Between:- Chitikina Subbarao @ Chetikena Subbarao, S/o. Satyanarayana,

aged 46 years, Hindu, Diwancheruvu village, Rajanagaram Mandal...Petitioner/

A2 AND

State: S.H.O., Prohibition & excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South..Respondent/

complainant.

This petition is coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner/A2 and Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and upon hearing their arguments this court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The petitioner/A2 seeking Anticipatory bail under section 482 of BNSS by filing this application relating to Crime No. 14 /2026 registered for the offence under sections 7-B r/w.8-B of A.P. Prohibition (amendment) Act, 2020 which is registered by the respondent/complainant.

2.The complainant's case, in brief, are as follows:-

i) On 21.01.2026 at 8.45 am, on reliable information, the Proh.& Excise Sub Inspector, Rajamahendravaram along with staff and mediator VRO, Diwancheruvu conducting raids for prohibition offences, they reached the scene of offence i.e. in the front of house bearing D.No.1-157/1 belongs to Komali Varalakshmi of Rajanagaram Mandal, they found one female person having a mica bag in her right hand. On seeing the raid party the female person perturbed and tried to escape from the place, but P &ESI stopped her with the assistance of staff and questioned her about the contents of mica bag, for which she stated that the bag contains ID liquor. In the presence of mediator, the raid party verified the mica bag and found 14 liters of ID liquor i.e., 10 liters of ID liquor in 02 polythene covers each cover containing about 05 liters and 04 liters of ID liquor in a polythene cover total 14 liters of ID liquor. On questioning about her identifies and source of ID liquor and she revealed her identified as A1) Komali Varalakshmi and she also stated that she purchased the ID liquor from her relative A2) Chitikina Subbarao of Diwancheruvu village, Rajanagaram Mandal and she sells at her residence and she will get profit. Then P& ESI arrested her and drawn one sample bottle with

2

300 ml of ID liquor and duly singed by departments persons and signed of accused under the cover of mediator report.

ii) On the strength of mediator report, a case in Cr.No.14/2026 was registered by the respondent/complainant under Sec. 7-B r/w.8-B of A.P. Prohibition (amendment) Act, 2020 and investigated into.

3.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the state, the point for consideration is:-

"Whether the request of petitioner/A2 for grant of Anticipatory bail can be

acceded"?

POINT:

4.The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (amendment) Act, 2020 of Proh.& Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South.

5.A perusal of the record shows that material witnesses have been examined in this case. The arrest and detention of the petitioner may not be necessary in view of the fact that there is considerable progress in investigation.

6.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240, and State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308, was pleased to hold that bail, not jail, is the rule except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/A2 shall be enlarged on bail (Anticipatory bail) in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.14/2026, the petitioner shall execute of self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the SHO., Proh. & Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South. The petitioner shall cooperate with investigation and shall not influence the witnesses in any manner.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in open

court, this the 11th day of May, 2026. Sd/Smt. B. Nirmala, VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum

Special Judge for trial of offences against women,

Rajamahendravaram. Copy to: The Prh.& Excise station, Rajamahendravaram South The counsel for the petitioner

//t.c.f.b.o//

3

1

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :: EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram. Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No. 501 /2026

(Cr.No. 138 /2026 of Bommuru P.S.)

Between:- Eda Srinivas, S/o. Jiyyaru Dasu, aged 59 years, D.No.5-125, Machavaram, Near Veterinary Hospital, Main road, Ambajipeta village & Mandal.

Working as Princiipal of APTWRJC for boys at ..Petitioner/

Rampachodavaram of Polavaram District. Accused AND

State: S.H.O., Bommuru P.S. ..Respondent/

complainant.

This is the 1 st bail petition is coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M. Chandra Mouli, Chilla Srinu, Advocates for the petitioner/Accused and Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and upon hearing their arguments this court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The petitioner/Accused seeking regular bail under section 483 of B.N.S.S. by filing this bail application relating to Crime No.138/2026 registered for the offence under sections 75(1), 78(1)(i), 308(5) of BNS, which is registered by the respondent/complainant.

2.The complainant's case, in brief, are as follows:-

i) The defacto complainant/victim Pilli vidya Latha is resident of Muralikonda, Bommuru Mandal and she is working as School Assistant at ZPHS Chemudulanka reported that she has been receiving disturbing calls from mobile number 9441094982, belonging to Eda Srinivas who is Junior Lecturer at APTWRJC Rampachodavaram. The accused started harassing her with vulgar language and blackmailing for money, seeking her to fulfill his sexual favours. Due to her family reputation, she did not disclose this to anyone, but Srinivas’s harassment escalated, including stalking her. Even she warned, he continued threatening her with dire consequences and demanding Rs.5 lakhs. In fear of death the complainant gave him Rs.5 lakhs. On 24.03.2026 the accused threatened her in her street, demanding Rs.5 2 lakhs and to fulfill his sexual favours. She gave him her gold ring out of fear of death. Hence the complainant gave report to police.

ii) On the strength of report given by the defacto complainant/victim a case in Cr.No. 138/2026 was registered by the respondent/complainant under Sec.75(1), 78(1)

(i), 308(5) of B.N.S. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer arrested the petitioner/Accused on 16.04.2026 and when he was produced before learned VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, accordingly, the petitioner/Accused was remanded to judicial custody.

3.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the state, the point for determination

is:- "Whether petitioner/Accused is entitled for the relief of regular bail as prayed for in the petition or not"?

POINT:

4.Upon careful perusal of First Information Report and prosecution record i.e. C.D. available before this court, upon careful perusal of contents of report submitted by the complainant and also other relevant record as well as Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the police, I found that on the strength of report of the victim, the investigating agency registered a case in crime No.138/2026 under sections 75(1), 78(1)(i), 308(5) of B.N.S., against the petitioner/Accused.

5.Further as seen from the case record and part-I & II C.D. and First Information Report and other record available before the court, I have clearly noted that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer has examined 06 witnesses and also recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

6.The material so far gathered by the investigating officer during the course of investigation discloses prima facie allegations against the petitioner. As the petitioner /Accused committing sexual harassment by making phone calls, stalking her while she was going to college and blackmailing for money and demanding for sexual favours.

3

7.So on considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, I of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused. Hence I am not inclined to allow the petition in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

8.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/Smt. B. Nirmala, VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum

Special Judge for trial of offences against women,

Rajamahendravaram.

Copy to: The S.H.O., Bommuru PS The counsel for the petitioner //t.c.f.b.o//