Dr.C.Yamini

P a g e 1

APKD000056342022

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present: Dr.C.YAMINI,

CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

MONDAY, THIS THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No.556 of 2022

1.Maaruboyana Ashok Kumar

2.Maruboina Krupa Mani

3.Maaruboyana Sudarsan Kumar (Minor) … Petitioners.

Vs

1.Angadi Haneef (Owner)

2.The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (Insurer)

3.P.Ramanaiah (Driver) … Respondents This petition coming on 06.04.2026 for final hearing before this

Court in the presence of Sri M.Ramanjaneya Reddy, Advocate for petitioners, and of Sri D.Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent

No.2 and Respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

P a g e 2

O R D E R

01.Petitioners herein filed this petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on death of deceased

Maaruboina Venkata Subbamma in Motor Accident.

02. The brief facts of the petition are that:-

(i) The claimant No.1 is husband, 2nd and 3rd claimants are children of the deceased Maaruboina Venkata Subbamma.

(ii) on 23.05.2022 while deceased Venkata Subbamma along with 2nd petitioner went to coolie work and after finishing the work, the deceased along with her daughter and other coolies were waiting at the road point to catch an auto. In the meanwhile the deceased went to attend nature calls, after passing urine, the deceased came at road point at about 12.00 Noon, at that time Tractor bearing No.AP-39-TC-3016 driven by it’s driver/R3 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, came on wrong side and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell at a distance with fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries at about 6.3.0 PM while taking treatment at

Santhiram Hospital, Nandyal. The deceased used to earn Rs.400/- to

Rs.500/- per day at her 44 years and contributing the same to her family.

Therefore, R.1 being the Owner of the Tractor bearing No. AP-39-TC- 3016, R.2 being it’s Insurance Company and R.3 being it’s Driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

03.Respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte.

04.R.2 filed written statement denying the material petition averments and further contended that, without admitting the involvement of the

P a g e 3 vehicle in question. The Insurance Company on credible information, came to know that the injuries sustained by the deceased was not due to accidental injury due to R1’s tractor and the deceased was traveling in

R1’s tractor as an unauthorized passenger and R1 willfully violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby petition is liable to be dismissed against R2. The driver of the Tractor was not having valid and effective DL to drive the tractor. R.1 failed to follow the mandatory provision U/Sec.134[c] of M.V.Act and concerned police failed to follow the mandatory provisions U/Sec.158(6) of M.V.Act. R2 seeks protection

U/Sec.147, 149 and 170 of M.V.Act. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive and claimed to dismiss the petition with costs.

05.Basing on the above averments, the following issues and additional issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the deceased Maaruboina Venkata

Subbamma died due to the injuries

sustained in motor vehicle accident

occurred on 23.05.2022 at about 12.00 PM

when she was waiting for an auto at the

road pint of her village due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of Tractor

bearing No. AP-39-TC-3016?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for

compensation, if so, from whom and to

what amount?

3. To what relief ?

06.On behalf of petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of Respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 policy and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4.

P a g e 4

Issue No.1 :

07.Oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR reveals that on 23.05.2022 while herself along with her mother Venkata

Subbamma went to attend coolie works in Krishnamapalle village of

Duvvur mandal and after finishing work, herself and her mother and other coolies were waiting at the road point to catch an auto and in the meanwhile, her mother went to a little distance to attend nature calls and after passing urine, she came at road point, at about 12.00 Noon, at that time, R1’s Tractor bearing No.AP-39-TC-3016 came from

Krishnamapalle village side, driven by it’s driver i.e., R.3 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, came on wrong side and dashed against her mother and as a result of which, her mother fell at a distance with fatal injuries which was witnessed by her and other coolies and she was shifted to Santhiram Hospital, Nandyal, where she succumbed to injuries at about 6.30 PM on the same day.

08.Though oral evidence of R.W-1 reveals that the petitioners, deceased and others were traveling by sitting in the Tractor and she was unauthorized passenger. He admitted in his cross that the accident occurred while deceased was on road as per Fir and charger sheet.

09.Though oral evidence of R.W-3 reveals that he is working as

Associate Professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine, Santiram

Medical College and General Hospital, Nandyala since November, 2019 and the deceased Maruboina Venkata Subbmma was admitted in

Santiram Medical College and General Hospital on 23.05.2022 and she died on the same day at 6.30 PM while undergoing treatment. Ex.X4 is

P a g e 5 the Attested Copy of Case Sheet relating to the treatment of the deceased. In Attested Copy of Death Summary attached Ex.X4 reveals that the deceased brought to the hospital with alleged fall from tractor near Krishnamapalli around 1.30 PM on 23.05.2022 and the same was mentioned in Medico Legal Cases Register and Trauma Assessment

Column. He admitted in his cross that do not know who furnished the information relating to the manner of injuries sustained by the deceased

Subbamma and they did not obtain the signature of the person, who furnished information and group of person brought the above Subbamma to the Hospital.

10.Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR which is first in point of time reveals that while the deceased was crossing the road, the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the above tractor.

The contents of Ex.A2 attested copy of Inquest Report reveals that the deceased in this case died while the deceased was on road due to high speed and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing No. AP-39-TC- 3016 hit the deceased. The contents of Ex.A3 attested copy of postmortem certificate reveals that the deceased in this case died due to hemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple injuries. After investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against R3 showing him as responsible for the said accident and manner of accident reveals that while deceased was coming, due to rash rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing No. AP-39-TC-3016 without blowing horn dashed the deceased and the contents of Ex.A4 attested copy of charge sheet reveals the same. Absolutely, there is no other evidence to rebut the same. Hence, placing reliance upon the oral evidence of PW-1 and on the contents of Ex.A1 attested copy of F.I.R, on the contents of Ex.A2

P a g e 6 attested copy of inquest report, on the contents of Ex.A3 attested copy of postmortem report and on the contents of Ex.A4 attested copy of charge sheet, I find that the said accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.3 while driving Tractor bearing

No.AP-39-TC-3016 and deceased Maarubouina Venkata Subbamma died due to the injuries received by her in that accident. Accordingly, Issue

No.1 is settled.

Issue No. 2:

11.The Learned Counsel for petitioners contended that the deceased was pedestrian, hit by Tractor and petitioners established the same and contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court even taken Rs.10,000/- per month in respect of heavy vehicle driver is not excessive.

12.Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 contended and filed writen arguments and main gist apart from pleadings is that there was no accident as alleged by the petitioners and R.1 has no permit as on the date of accident and without permit, no vehicle can ply on the road and

R1 violated the policy conditions and the deceased was traveling by sitting in the Tractor of R1 and thereby she is unauthorized passenger and hospital record reveals the same. R2 established the same by examining RW-3 Doctor and Ex.X4 and by examining RW-2 and by marking Ex.X1 to Ex.X3, R2 established that the seating capacity of tractor is one. Under the above circumstances, since the deceased was unauthorized passenger in the gods and tractor being not having valid permit, relief against R.2 has to be dismissed. To substantiate his contest, he relied on the decisions reported in 2006 ACJ 2771 Karnataka, 2010(2) An.W.R. 974(AP), AIR 2000 SC1165, 2008 ACJ 254, 2005 ACJ 721 and claimed to dismiss the petition with costs.

P a g e 7 13.Oral evidence of PW-1 further reveals that she is 2nd petitioner. 1st petitioner is her father, 3rd petitioner is her brother and deceased

Maruboina Venkata Subbama is her mother and she was aged about 44 years and used to earn Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per day and to take services of her mother at Rs.6000/- per month by adding 25% future prospects and also entitled for funeral expenditure and loss of estate and loss of consortium. The petitioners failed to establish the income of the deceased and moreover 1st petitioner being husband of deceased cannot be termed as dependent on his deceased wife and it is settled precedent of our

Hon’ble Apex Court, even there are no precedents to take future

prospects on services rendered by the wife. Under the above circumstances, the services rendered by the deceased to the petitioners was taken into consideration at Rs.7,000/- per month i.e., Rs.84,000/- per annum. The claimants being 3 in number, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted towards the personal services rendered by the deceased to the petitioners. Though Ex.A3 postmortem report reveals the age of the deceased as 41 years, evidence of PW-1 reveals the age of deceased as 44 years and thereby the age of the deceased was taken into consideration as 44 years and that the multiplier that can be applied is 14.

14.Therefore, taking into consideration of age of the deceased as 44 years, the multiplier that can be applied is 14 and services rendered by the deceased taken into consideration at Rs.84,000/- per annum and 1/3rd of that amount has to deducted towards her personal services and her contribution to her services to the petitioners is worked out at

Rs.56,000/- per annum and dependency of the services of the deceased to the petitioners was assessed at Rs.53,000/- x 14 = Rs.7,84,000/-.

P a g e 8

15.The Claimant No.1 being husband of the deceased, he is entitled to

Rs.48,000/- towards loss of consortium. The 1st petitioner being husband, 2nd and 3rd petitioners being children of the deceased, they are entitled

Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all petitioners herein are entitled to Rs.8,68,000/-.

16.Oral Evidence of RW-1 reveals that the tractor bearing No. AP-39-

TC-3016 was insured with R.2 under Ex.B1 policy, subject to terms and conditions and R1’s vehicle has no permit as on the date of accident and without permit, the vehicle should not ply on the public road and R1 knowingly handed over the vehicle to ply on the road without permit by violating Ex.B1 and the deceased traveled as an unauthorized passenger in commercial vehicle/tractor and seating capacity of Tractor is one only i.e, meant for driver and since R1 violated the terms and conditions of policy, R2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

17.Evidence of RW-2 is that he is working as Administrative Officer in

Deputy Transport Office, Kadapa since 2022. Ex.X1 is his authorization.

Ex.X2 is B-Register Extract of Tractor bearing No.AP-39-TC-3016. Ex.X3 is Fitness Certificate. As per RC, the seating capacity of above vehicle is one, which is meant for driver and except driver, no other person is entitled to travel in tractor. As on 24.05.2022, RC and Fitness were valid for the above tractor.

18.The learned counsel relied on the decision reported in 2006 ACJ

2771, New India Assurance Co., Ltd Vs G.N.Gopalgowda and

another, wherein in paras 4 to 6 held as follows:

P a g e 9 “4. The F.I.R., Exh. R1, is marked which is a part of the charge-sheet. The petitioner for the reasons best known to him has not produced the F.I.R. along with the charge-sheet material tendered as documentary evidence in his favour.

The first informant in the F.I.R. is cited as CW-1 in the charge-sheet marked at Exh. P1. The narration of the accident as per Exh. R1 discloses that there was no involvement of the auto in causing the accident. Petitioner on account of his negligence sustained personal injuries.

The simulated exercise of filing the charge-sheet against the driver of the auto and conviction of the auto driver on the plea of his guilt before the criminal court appears to be a thorough conspiracy preplanned to fabricate a false prosecution and make believe theory. The Tribunal has gravely erred in not discerning the evident conspiracy of fraud and fabrication of a false case against the auto driver with unholy motives.” “5. Petitioner is a police constable. The charge-sheet does not explain the divergent and contra material in the F.I.R.,

Exh. R1 to sustain the charge-sheet against the auto driver.

Evidently, it appears to be a case of fraud on the court and misuse of official position by the petitioner with the connivance of investigating officer in concocting a false case to make unlawful gain and to cause unlawful loss to the public money.” “6. The material on record abundantly discloses that the criminal prosecution launched against the auto driver is only a make believe version. The contents of F.I.R. strongly

P a g e 10 corroborate the version of the insurer that the auto was not involved in the accident. The contra finding of the Claims

Tribunal in that regard is palpably perverse, the fastening of the liability on the insurer is bad in law. The award made against the insurer is set aside. The appeal is allowed.” 19.Herein this OP, the petitioners produced FIR along with charge sheet and FIR contents are consistent with charge sheet contents.

20.Thus as per evidence of RW-2, it is clear that there is valid permit to the crime vehicle as discussed in detail in Issue No.1, R.2 failed to establish that the deceased was unauthorized passenger in the tractor by the time of accident with cogent evidence and thereby all the decisions except 2006 ACJ 2771 relied on by the learned counsel for the R2 are relating to liability of R.2 to the unauthorized passenger in goods vehicle and thereby the facts of the above decisions relied on by the learned counsel for R2 are different from the facts of the present case. Therefore,

R1 being the Owner of the Tractor bearing AP-39-TC-3016, R2 being it’s

Insurance Company and R3 being it’s Driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation. Accordingly, issue No.2 is settled.

Issue No.3:

21. In the result, petition is allowed in part granting compensation of

Rs.8,68,000/-. with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit with proportionate cost and interest. All the

Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation. Time for deposit is one month. On such deposit, 1st

Petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,16,000/- and Petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.2,76,000/- each with proportionate costs and interest. On

P a g e 11 such deposit, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation. By following the Judgment of our

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal and

Others, Respondent No.2 has to directly deposit/credit the shares of petitioners in their respective S.B. Accounts. The petitioners are directed to submit their respective S.B. Account 1st page containing the name of the petitioner along with account number within seven days from this date by giving copy of the same to the counsel for Respondent No.2. On such payment the concerned Bank shall kept the 3rd minor petitioner’s share of compensation with proportionate costs and interest in the form of F.D.R until the 3rd minor petitioner attains majority and the 1st petitioner being guardian of the 3rd minor petitioner shall co-operate and take steps for keeping the respective minor’s share of compensation with interest in

F.D.R. The concerned Bank shall not en-cash F.D.R unless this court permitted to en-cash the same or the minor attains majority whichever is earlier.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI,

CHAIRPERSON,MACT–CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for:

For the petitioners : For respondents

P.W.1 : M.KrupamaniR.W.1: K.Satyanaryana Murthy R.W.2 : E.Y.Prakash R.W.3 :P.Hari Krishna

P a g e 12

Documents marked for the petitioners:

Ex.A.1:Attested copy of FIR in Crime No.94/2022 of Duvvur P.S

Ex.A.2:Attested copy of Inquest Report

Ex.A.3:Attested copy of Postmortem Report

Ex.A.4:Attested copy of charge sheet

Documents marked for respondents:

Ex.B.1:Copy of Insurance Policy

Ex.X.1:Authorization of R.W-2

Ex.X.2:B-Register extract of Tractor bearing No. AP-39-TC-3016

Ex.X.3:Fitness Certificate.

Ex.X.4:Attested copy of case sheet

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI,

CHAIRPERSON, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA .

P a g e 1

APKD000002802020

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present: Dr.C.YAMINI,

CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

MONDAY, THIS THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No.68 of 2020

M.Jareena Sulthana … Petitioner.

Vs

1.Shaik Akram Basha

2.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

3.Ramaswami Venakta Ramana @ Syed Yusuf Basha

4.Shaik Noorjahan Begum

5.Shaik Thaisin Fathima

6.Shaik Shaijadi (minor), rep.,by her next friend mother guardian R.5

Respondents No.5 and 6 are added as per orders in I.A.No.1655/2022, dt.06.10.2023) … Respondents This petition coming on 20.02.2026 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri M.Ramanjaneya Reddy, Advocate for petitioner, and of Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for Respondents No.2 and of Sri T.Ramalingeswara Rao, Advocate for Respondents No.4 to 6 and Respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

P a g e 2

O R D E R

01.Petitioner herein filed this petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on death of deceased Sk.Hyder

Ali @ Shaik Khadar Basha in Motor Accident.

02. The brief facts of the petition are that:-

(i) The deceased Sk.Hyder Ali @ Shaik Khadar Basha was aged about 35 years, having valid and effective DL to drive Light Motor

Vehicles and working as Driver and earning Rs.500/- per day and sometimes more. The petitioner and R.4 are entiteld to 40% addition to the present income. Petitioner is wife of deceased and R.4 is mother of the deceased Sk.Hyder Ali @ Shaik Khadar Basha. Since she did not cooperate to file the O.P jointly, she showed as Respondent No.4.

(ii) The deceased Sk.Hyder Ali @ Shaik Khadar Basha as a driver to the Car No. AP-21-AT-1675 along with one Harshavardha, Bhudevi, and Jagadeshwara Rao, went to Bangalore to see the daughter of

Jagadeeshwar Rao and on the next day i.e, on 03.10.2019 in return journey, when the deceased and other inmates reached near Check-post of Keshapuram of Chinnamandem Mandal, R.1’s lorry lorry bearing No.

AP-04-W-3875 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and in wrong side, driven by R.3 and at about 6.50

AM hit the car. As a result of which, the deceased and other inmates died on the spot. Thus. the accident occurred only due to the rash and driving of R3/Lorry Driver. R1’s lorry was insured with R2 and thereby R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed compensation.

P a g e 3

03.Respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte.

04.R.2 filed Counter denying the material petition averments and further contended that, the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. R2 seeks protection U/Sec.149 and 170 of

M.V.Act. R.1 failed to follow the mandatory provision U/Sec.134[c] of

M.V.Act and concerned police failed to follow the mandatory provisions

U/Sec.158(6) of M.V.Act. The driver of the car was not having valid and effective DL. The driver of the crime vehicle lorry does not possess valid and effective DL as on the date of accident, which amounts to breach of

Section 181 r/w Section 3 of M.V.Act. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e., Owner and Insurance Company of Tata Indica car bearing No. AP-21-AT-1675 and claimed to dismiss the petition with costs.

05.R.4 filed Counter denying the material petition averments and further contended that, the petitioner is 1st wife of deceased Khadar

Basha and she lived with the deceased hardly for two weeks and left the matrimonial home and failed to join the deceased and she herself voluntarily withdrawn from the marital tie of the deceased. The deceased filed FCOP 71/2017 for restitution of conjugal rights and inspite of the same, she did not join the deceased. As such she is not entitled to claim the compensation. The petitioner is living with her parents since petitioner did not join the deceased inspite of Family Court orders, he married one

Shaik Thaisin Fathima as per Muslim rites and rituals as she is 2nd wife.

During their wed lock, they begot one daughter namely Shaik Shaijadi i.e., R6. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and Shaik Thaisin and

Shaik Shaijadi are proper and necessary parties and as such the petition

P a g e 4 is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and liable tot be dismissed and claimed to grant compensation not only to the petitioner but to the 2nd wife and daughter of deceased Shaik Khader Basha.

06.R.5 and R.6 filed Counter denying the material petition averments and further contended that R.5 and R.6 are 2nd wife and daughter of deceased and their counter averments are replica of counter averments of R.4 and to avoid repetition, not reiterated.

07.Basing on the above averments, the following issues and additional issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the accident is caused died due to

rash and negligent driving by driver (R3) of

lorry bearing No. AP-04-TW-3875 causing

death to the deceased?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for

compensation, if so, from whom and to

what amount ?

3. To what relief ?

Additional Issues:-

1. Whether there are negligence on the part of

the deceased in driving TATA Indica Car

bearing No. AP-21-AT-1675?

2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder

necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of

TATA Indica Car bearing No. AP-21-AT-1675?

3. Whether the Respondents No.4 to 6 are

entitled for compensation, if so, from whom

and to what amount?

4. To what relief ?

P a g e 5

08.On behalf of petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of Respondent No.4, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B9.

Issue No.1 and Additional Issues No.1 and 2 :

09.Since Issue No.1 and Additional Issues No.1 and 2 are inter related, they are dealt together.

10.Though oral evidence of PW-1 and RW.1 reveals the manner of accident, admittedly they are not witnesses to the accident.

11.Oral evidence of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR reveals that on 04.10.2019 at about 6.50 AM, while PW-2 on duty at

Forest Check-post in Keshapuram, one Indica Vista car bearing No.AP- 21-AT-1675 while coming from Madanapalli side towards Kadapa side, on normal speed on left side of the road, one lorry bearing No.AP-04-W- 3875 came in opposite direction from Rayachoty side driven by it’s driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed went on wrong side and hit the car and as a result, the three inmates of the car including driver

Khader Basha sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Himself and others rushed to the place of offence and informed the same to their relatives and he was examined by the police. The contents of Ex.A2 attested copy of Inquest Report reveals that the deceased in this case died due to high speed and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.

AP-04-W-3875 and deceased died due to the injuries received by him in that accident. The contents of Ex.A3 attested copy of postmortem report reveals that the deceased in this case died due to Cardio respiratory

P a g e 6 failure due to Road Traffic Accident. After investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against R3 showing him as responsible for the said accident and the contents of Ex.A4 attested copy of charge sheet reveals the same. Absolutely, there is no other evidence to rebut the same. Hence, placing reliance upon the oral evidence of PW-2 and on the contents of Ex.A1 attested copy of F.I.R, on the contents of Ex.A2 attested copy of inquest report, on the contents of Ex.A3 attested copy of postmortem report and on the contents of Ex.A4 attested copy of charge sheet, I find that the said accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.3 while driving Lorry bearing No.AP- 04-W-3875 and deceased Shaik Khadar Basha died due to the injuries received by him in that accident and that the petition is not bad for non joinder of necessary parties and since there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased while driving Tata Indica Car bearing

No.AP-21-AT-1675 since R.2 failed to establish the same. Accordingly,

Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1 and are settled.

Issue No. 2 and Additional Issue No.3

12.Since Issue No.2 and Additional Issue No.3 are inter related, they are dealt together.

13.Evidence of PW-1 is that she is wife of deceased and R.4 is mother of deceased and they are entitled for compensation and the mother of deceased did not cooperate, she was shown as R.4 and her deceased husband aged about 35 years and had driving license to drive the Light Motor Vehicles and working as driver and earning Rs.500/- per day and they are entitled to 40% to the additional income to the present income and they lost their sole bread winner and they are entitled for loss

P a g e 7 of estate, funeral expenses, transportation charges and total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. PW-1 admitted in her cross that she do not know whether R6 is daughter of her husband through R5 or not.

14.Evidence of RW-1 is that she is R5 and acquainted with the facts of the petition. R6 is her minor daughter and R4 is her mother-in-law, petitioner is 1st wife of deceased and after marriage, petitioner hardly lived with deceased for two weeks and left the matrimonial home without reason and insptie of filing FCOP NO. 71/2017 for restitution of conjugal rights and inspite of Order of the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner did not join with deceased. Since petitioner did not join, R.4 arranged the marriage between her with deceased and performed marriage on 28.08.2012 as per Muslim rites and rituals and during their wedlock, they gave birth R6 and petitioner intentionally failed to add herself and her daughter and her husband is having valid and effective DL and earning Rs.30,000/- per month as driver and maintaining herself and her daughter and after death of her husband, her mother-in- law/R4 is looking after her needs and minor daughter needs and to grant compensation not only to the petitioner but also to her and her daughter.

Ex.B1 is in Urdu format. Ex.B2 is the Nikha photos which containing the

R.5 with deceased And Ex.B3 Birth Certificate of R6 reveals she is the daughter of deceased and R5. Ex.B4 is the Aadhar card of the P5 and

Ex.B5 is the Aadhar card of the P6. Ex.B6 study certificate reveals that she is daughter of deceased. Ex.B8 is Driving license of the deceased. In

Ex.B9 Pension card refers the name of Khader Basha in the capacity of husband and that she is receiving widow pension. The Respondent No.4 who is mother of the deceased filed counter stating that petitioner is 1st wife of deceased and since she deserted, her deceased son re-married

P a g e 8

R5 and R6 is the daughter of deceased through R5. There is no dispute that even petitioner is not denying the wife of the deceased. Since deceased is Muslim, he can re-marry R5 during his wedlock. Under the above circumstances, Petitioner being 1st wife of deceased, R.4 being mother of deceased, R.5 being 2nd wife of deceased and R.6 being minor child of deceased are entitled for compensation.

15.Undisputedly, the deceased was driver and the petitioners and R4 to R6 failed to establish the exact income of the deceased and thereby considering the driving skills of deceased, the income of the deceased is notionally taken into consideration at Rs.8,000/- per month i.e.,

Rs.96,000/- per annum. As per Ex.A3 postmortem report, age of the deceased was 35 years and thereby the multiplier that can be applied is ‘16’. The dependents being 4 in number i.e, 2 wives, mother and daughter, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased.

16.Therefore, taking into consideration of age of the deceased as 35 years, the multiplier that can be applied is 16 and income of the deceased at Rs.96,000/- per annum and 1/4 of that income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and his contribution to his family was worked out at Rs.72,000/- per annum and dependency of the petitioners on the deceased was worked out at Rs.72,000/- x 16 =

Rs.11,52,000/-.

17.The petitioner and R.5 being wives of the deceased, they ares entitled to Rs.48,000/- towards loss of consortium. The petitioner, R.5 being wives, R.4 being mother, R.6 being minor daughter of the

P a g e 9 deceased, they are entitled Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all petitioners herein are entitled to Rs.12,36,000/-. Therefore, R1 being the driver of the Lorry bearing AP-16-P-6224, R2 being it’s Owner and R3 being it’s Insurance

Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation.

Accordingly, issue No.2 and Additional Issue No. 3 are settled.

Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.4:

18.Since Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.4 are inter related, they are dealt together.

19. In the result, petition is allowed in part granting compensation of

Rs.12,36,000/-. with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit with proportionate cost and interest. The

Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation. Time for deposit is one month. On such deposit,

Petitioner and Respondent No.5 are entitled to Rs.3,21,000/- each and

Respondents No.4 and 6 are entitled to Rs.2,97,000/- each with proportionate costs and interest. On such deposit, the petitioner,

Respondent No.4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation. By following the Judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal and Others, Respondent

No.2 has to directly deposit/credit the shares of petitioners in their respective S.B. Accounts. The petitioners are directed to submit their respective S.B. Account 1st page containing the name of the petitioner along with account number within seven days from this date by giving copy of the same to the counsel for Respondent No.3. On such payment the concerned Bank shall kept the Respondent No.6 minor’s share of compensation with proportionate costs and interest in the form of F.D.Rs until the Respondent No.6 attains majority and the Respondent No.5

P a g e 10 being guardian of the Respondent No.6 minor shall co-operate and take steps for keeping the respective minor’s share of compensation with interest in F.D.Rs. The concerned Bank shall not en-cash F.D.Rs unless this court permitted to en-cash the same or the minors attains majority whichever is earlier.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI,

CHAIRPERSON,MACT–CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for:

For the petitioners : For respondents

P.W.1 : M.Jareena SultanaR.W.1: S.Thasiin Fathima P.W.2 : Derangula Nagaraja

Documents marked for the petitioners:

Ex.A.1:Attested copy of F.I.R in cr.No.162/2019 of Chinna Mannur P.S.

Ex.A.2:Attested copy of inquest report

Ex.A.3:Attested copy of P.M certificate.

Ex.A.4:Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex. A.5: Driving license extract of the deceased issued by R.T.A., Kadapa. (Subject to objection)

Documents marked for respondents:

Ex.B.1:Nikha Certificate issued by Khaji.

Ex.B.2:Two Marriage photos

P a g e 11

Ex.B.3:Birth Certificate of 6th Respondent.

Ex.B.4:Aadhar Card of 5th Respondent.

Ex.B.5:Aadhar Card of 6th Respondent.

Ex.B.6:Study Certificate of 6th Respondent.

Ex.B.7:Photo of 5th Respondent along with 6th Respondent.

Ex.B.8:DL of Deceased.

Ex.B.9:Household Card of Respondent No.5.

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI,

CHAIRPERSON, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA .

1

APKD000000382026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present:-Dr.C.Yamini

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KADAPA.

Monday on this the 13th day of April, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.04/2026

Thalapula Aisha …. Appellant/Petitioner

Vs.

Shaik Anwar Basha. Respondent/Respondent

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.04/2026

From which court the Appeal is Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile preferredCourt, Kadapa

Number of the case in that Court Crl.M.P.No.273/2024 in DVC No.27/2024

Number of the Criminal AppealCrl.A.No.04/2026

Name and Description of the Thalapula Aisha, W/o Shaik Anwar Basha, Appellantaged about 27 years, Housewife, presently R/at Door No.18/73, S.F.S.Street, Kadapa City.

The sentence and law under whichIn the result, this petition is partly allowed it was imposed in the lower court. directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of this order till disposal of main case and shall be paid on or before 10th of every month with this finding the petition is allowed.

2

Whether confirmed, modified or Modified. reversed, if modified, the In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed by modification. modifying the order dated 25.11.2025 in

Crl.M.P.No.273/2024 in D.V.C.No.27/2024

on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa by granting interim maintenance at Rs.12,000/- till the date of disposal of the main case from the date of the filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition instead of the date of order.

Date of presentation 16-01-2026

Date of last presentation16-01-2026

Date of admission 17-01-2026

Date of hearing10-04-2026

Date of Judgment.13-04-2026

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 10.04.2026, for final hearing

before this Court, in the presence of Sri C.S.Riazuddin and Sri S.Ghouse

Basha, Advocates for Appellant/Petitioner and of Sri K.Venkateswara

Reddy, Advocate for Respondent /Respondent, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The petitioner herein filed the D.V.C along with interim maintenance petition to grant interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- in

Crl.M.P.No.273/2024 in DVC No.27/2024.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred in this

Judgment as they are arrayed in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

3

3. The brief facts of the petition are that:

(i) The petitioner and respondent are legally wedded wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 28.01.2018 as per

Mohammedan rites and customs at Sangam Marriage Hall at Kadapa in the presence of both side relatives and other respectable persons of locality. At the time of marriage, as per the demands of her in-laws, her parents gave 30 tulas of gold and Rs.10,00,000/- cash as dowry apart from the above said dowry, her parents gave gold neck chain to her husband weighing about one tula and two tulas of gold Chappki's and household articles worth about Rs. 3,00,000/- and marriage was celebrated lavishly by spending an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. During their wedlock, they begot a female child by name Shaik Ansha Fathima, aged about 3 years and she is under care and protection of the petitioner. They lead happy marital life for a period of Six 6 months from the date of marriage, thereafter they started harassing her and torturing after the birth of female child, though she adjusted to the respondent family members with patience, her husband colluded with his family members started torturing her about the newly born female child and started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- for this child marriage, otherwise they threaten to kill the female child for male child and her husband also willing to remarry saying that the dowry given by her parents was meager and not sufficient for his status i.e., Software Engineer and as property holder and this fact confirmed by her in-laws. On demand of her in-laws, her parents gave 1 tula of gold chain to her daughter on the occasion of "Chilla" and her relatives gave gold rings weighed of 1 tula.

(ii) The Respondent being her husband is neglected her till today and continuously committed an act of Domestic Violence against her. She 4 is a house wife and she has no means to maintain herself, even till today she is facing a lot to lead marital life with the Respondent and willing re- join with him, but the Respondent on the instigation of Respondent No 2 to 5 and his uncle by name Ishaq bluntly refuse to take back her. Hence, he is liable to pay the interim maintenance to her, he being a Senior Soft

Ware Engineer getting Rs: 1,20,000/- per month. She is facing a lot financially, physically and mentally and burden on my her old aged mother. Hence, seeking interim maintenance.

4.Respondent filed counter filed counter denying the material petition averments and further contended that, after the marriage, on the demand of the Petitioner to take her to island, the respondent had planned and took her to Andaman by flight and stayed there from 4th February to 9th

February, 2018 by spending Rs.1,00,000/- for the trip out of love and affection towards the petitioner and when she got contacted with a skin disease, he took the petitioner directly to Bangalore and got her treated with Doctor at Bangalore where she stayed ten days only.

(ii) The petitioner never cared and acted as wife of the respondent and never used to prepare food for him and when he asked, she used to threaten him saying that she would mix poison in his food. On one occasion, she had mixed more red chilli in food deliberately and served it to the respondent. Due to which, he suffered severe stomachache and further mocked the respondent on this serious issue and then left with her parents without any intimation in the month of May, 2018 by calling her parents and other relatives. At the time of the 6th month of pregnancy, the

Petitioner wanted to go to her parental home and as per her wish, the respondent sent her by giving Rs.50,000/-for her needs. The Petitioner gave birth to the child on 27.11.2018. The Petitioner stayed at her 5 parents' home even after three months of the delivery. The respondent used to visit petitioner every weekend at her parents' home, for which she used to ask the respondent as to why he was coming over by saying that she could look after herself. With those humiliating words, the respondent used to feel mental agony.

(iii) The family members of the petitioner rejected the requests of the respondent to drop her back at his house and instead, they abused the respondent in filthy language over phone calls. They also humiliated the respondent when he went to the house of the Petitioner on the eve of

Bakrid to get back his wife and child but, the Petitioner refused and the respondent was pushed out of the house and the petitioner remained in her parents' house. After two months on September 2019, when the respondent called informing that his parents would come to Bangalore and that they would take the Petitioner to Bangalore, she again rejected and with her disinterest to lead happy marital life, the petitioner used to fight always with the respondent, argue and misbehave with the respondents. For the last six months, there was no communication between the petitioner and the respondent, he was not allowed to see and interact with the child and not even sent a single photograph of the child to him. On 30.12.2019, the respondent issued a letter to come back and join with him for which, she rejected to join. The respondent has also issued the notice to the petitioner through the Khazi for mediation, but she did not attend before the Khaji. This attitude of the petitioner shows that she has no intention to join the respondent

(iv) The petitioner has got health issues pertaining to her Neuro problems and she also took treatment in the Jagadeesh Neuro Hospital,

Kadapa and the same was filed in the FCOP.No.31 of 2022. Due to her 6 neuro complications and mental imbalance, she used to harass the respondent and his family members for her own reasons. Therefore, no willful negligence on the part of the respondent or on the part of his family members about her leaving the company of the respondent being dutiful husband.

(v) As the efforts of the respondent for reunion proved futile, he issued legal notice dated 05.10.2021 for reconciliation and dissolution of the marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner lodged report under

Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act with false allegations, anticipating that she has failed to prove her case in FCOP.No.31/2022 for conjugal rights. Thus, the petitioner has lodged the criminal case with a view to harass for unlawful gain.

(vi) The petitioner and respondent are living separately for the last 6 years without any marital relationship and as such, the question of committing the domestic violence on the petitioner by the respondent does not arise. The petitioner has been staying at her parental house since, July 2019. There is no prima facie case made out showing that the respondent committed the domestic violence on the petitioner. The respondent also approached the Bukhari who is the Khaji of Kadapa. The family court being the superior court has dismissed the petition for the restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner is not entitled to interim maintenance.

(vii) The petitioner filed M.C.No.20 /2022 claiming maintenance for her and the daughter and the same was dismissed on 26.6.2024 and partly allowed in favour of the daughter only directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the daughter only with an observation that the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home on her own accord 7 and hence she is not entitled for the maintenance. The respondent has paid Rs.2,50,000/- towards interim maintenance to the petitioner and their daughter while the MC was pending and after disposal of the MC, he is paying the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the daughter. The father of the respondent is suffering with brain stroke due to which, the right leg and hand are paralyzed and he lost speech and as such he was totally bed ridden. The mother of the respondent is unable to serve the sickly father due to her high BP and being diabetic patient. The respondent is incurring an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month towards treatment and claimed to dismiss the petition.

5. None of the witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked on their behalf.

6.After considering the pleadings available on record,the lower court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition partly, directing the respon- dent to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month towards interim mainte- nance from the date of this order till disposal of main DVC case.

7.Aggrieved by the said Order dated 25.11.2025 in

Crl.M.P.No.273/2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kadapa, the appellant/petitioner preferred this appeal urging several grounds.

8.Now the point that arise for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant interim maintenance for Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of filing Crl.M.P.No.273/2024 instead of from the date of order as prayed for?

8

POINT:

9.Learned counsel for Appellant contended that maintenance is to be awarded from date on which application was filed and that the Lower

Court did not observe the Assets and Liabilities of the respondent and he is getting total salary of Rs.1,08,000/- and 20% of the salary shall be given to wife and thereby the Lower Court ought to have granted

Rs.21,600/- from the date of petition instead of Rs.12,000/- and claimed to modify the order to the extent of interim maintenance from the date of interim maintenance petition.

10.Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the petitioner herself deserted the respondent and restitution of conjugal rights FCOP filed by the petitioner was dismissed on that ground and in MC already granted maintenance to the petitioner and their daughter by way of interim maintenance and after final disposal, granted maintenance at

Rs.12,000/- per month to the daughter and the respondent also filed another Appeal to allow the appeal by dismissing the Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition without granting maintenance to the petitioner and thereby the appellant is not entitled for any interim maintenance.

11.The criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the practice to be considered is the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, whether the applicant is educated and whether she has no independent source of income, maintenance of minor children and ill health of a spouse etc., Admittedly, the respondent/husband is earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- by working as a software engineer and admittedly petitioner/wife is a housewife and non 9 earning member. It is not even the stand of the respondent/husband that petitioner/wife is having independent source of income to maintain herself. Moreover even according to the respondent, petitioner is suffering with ill health. Though counter averments reveals that insptie of his efforts to take back his wife to conjugal life, she refused, but he did not file single proof to that effect. Moreover, the petitioner take steps by filing FCOP for restitution of conjugal rights, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition averments prima facie shows that she was subjected to Domestic

Violence. Counter pleadings clearly reveals that even the newly born child was not taken to the house of his father. No steps were taken to that effect. Moreover, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition averments reveals that dowry was paid on demand made by the parents of respondent and they demanded for additional dowry on birth of female child. The circumstances clearly establishes that petitioner was not only subjected to domestic violence but also neglected to maintain the wife and minor child by the respondent/husband. Granting maintenance to the minor child in

Maintenance Case is not a bar to grant maintenance to the wife in

Domestic Violence Case, even petitioner did not sought relief to enhance the maintenance from Rs.12,000/-. In view of the income of the respondent being more than Rs.1,00,000/- granting interim maintenance

Rs.12,000/- to the wife does not require any interference. So far as granting maintenance from the date of order by the Trial Court is concerned, it seeks modification from the date of the petition .

12.In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed by modifying the order

dated 25.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.273/2024 in D.V.C.No.27/2024 on the file

of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa by granting interim maintenance at Rs.12,000/- till the date of disposal of the 10 main case from the date of the filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition instead of the date of order.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI,

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No additional oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI,

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA. To The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Present:- Dr.C.Yamini,

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday on this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No.160/2026 in Cr.No.239/2025 of Mannur P.S.

Kurimella Ramesh Goud, aged 49 years, son of Satyanarayana, native village of Nellutla Village, Lingalaghanapur Mandal, Jangam District, Telangana State. Presently residing at Door No. 22-348/172, BTR Nagar, Shyamirpet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana.

... Petitioner/Accused No.1

Vs.

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Mannur U/G Police Station

... Respondent/Complainant.

This bail petition coming on 22.04.2026 before me in the presence of Sri D.Reddaiah, Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant, after perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

01.Petitioner herein filed this petition under Section 187(2) of B.N.S.S.

to enlarge the petitioner/A1 on bail for the offences punishable

U/Sec.61(2),316(2), 318(4) 336(2), 340(2) r/w Sec.3 (5) of BNS Act,2023 and Sec.5 of A.P. Protection Depositors and Financial Establishment Act in Cr.No.239/2025 dated 24.10.2025.

2

02. The brief facts of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is as follows :

The Police, Mannur U/G Police Station arrested the petitioner and produced on 12.02.2026 before Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajampet for remand and he was remanded to judicial custody and now the petitioner lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa and he was in judicial custody for more than 60 days from the date of first arrest and the alleged offences are not punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. Therefore, statutory period applicable is 60 days under Section 187(2) Cr.P.C and respondent police failed to file charge sheet within statutory period of 60 days. Upon the expiry of statutory period, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused to be released on bail, provided he is ready to furnish sureties. Therefore, sought to grant bail to the petitioner/A1. To substantiate his contest, he relied on the decisions reported in (2006) 11 AP CK 0010, Singamala

Sankara Nath Vs State of A.P and 2018(2) ALD(Crl.) 447, Avva Venkata

Rama Rao and another Vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

03. Now the point for consideration is that :- “Whether the petitioner/accused A.1 is entitled to enlarge him on statutory bail as prayed for”?

POINT :-Both the learned counsels respectively argued

04.The Learned Public Prosecutor contended that though charge sheet was not filed though crime registered against accused for the offences under Section BNS are relates to less than 10 years. Under 3

Sec.5 of A.P. Protection Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, the maximum punishment prescribed is 10 years and thereby petitioner is not entitled for statutory bail.

05.None of the witnesses were examined on either side and no documents were marked on either side.

06.In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner reported in (2006) 11 AP CK 0010, Singamala Sankara Nath Vs State of

A.P, wherein our Hon’ble High Court at para 11 to 14 held as follows:

“11. Proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 17 Cr. P.C. is not controlled by either Section 437 Cr. P.C. Merits of the case are immaterial. Whatever may be the serious nature of the crime and gravity of offence, no discretion is given to the Magistrate when the accused files an application for grant of bail under the said section, and thereupon the accused is entitled for bail as a matter of right. The observation in Bukke Ranuka case (supra) that right of an accused to apply for bail after sixty /ninety days of remand is indefeasible right provided that the substantive provision dealing with granting of bail permits the release of bail, is per incuriam in view of the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Sanjay Dutt case 1995 Cri LJ 477 (supra) and Uday Mohanlal Acharya case 2001 Cri LJ 1832 (supra). If the said contention is accepted, then proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. is a dead letter in the Statute book. The object behind this salutary provision is to prevent the incarceration of persons accused of offences for an unduly long period without any other limit. This provision is an innovation in new Code and is intended to speed up investigation so that a person accused of an offence does not have to languish unnecessarily in prison facing a trial. Grant of bail under proviso (a) to Sub-section (22) of Section 167 Cr.

4

P.C. is not on the merits of the case, but is primarily a statutory and technical right accruing in the event of delays in completion of investigation by police. The provisions of Section 437 Cr. P.C. can be invoked at any stage of the case. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the decision rendered by this Court in Bukke Ranuka case (supra) is per incuriam. As a matter of fact, this Court in a decision in Public Prosecutor v. Chaganti Satyanarayana 1986 Cri LJ 1134 (AP) held as follows: (Para 13) If the investigation into a case is not completed and the charge sheet is not filed before the expiry of the period of detention of the accused for 90 days or 60 days as the case may be, the accused is entitled to be released on bail under the proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C., 1973. No discretion whatsoever is left to the Magistrate and it is obligatory on his part to release the accused on bail provided the accused furnishes bail.” “12. In the circumstances, returning of the petition filed by the petitioner herein by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellor with the impugned endorsement dated 19-10-2006 in pursuance of the circular issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore is illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. and also the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Dutt's case 1975 Cri LJ 477 (supra) and Uday Mohanlal Acharya's case 2001 Cri LJ 1832 (supra).” “13. Coming to the facts of the present case, maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act, 1999 is 10 years and for the offence under Section 420, I.P.C. is 7 years. Therefore, under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C., police have to file charge sheet within 60 days. The petitioner was arrested on 19-8-2006 and since then he has been in judicial custody for more than 60 days. It is not in dispute

before this Court that police have not filed charge sheet as on

today. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail as a matter of 5 right in view of the fact that he has applied for bail.” “14. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner shall be released on his execution of a bond for Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 11 Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.”

07.In the other decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner reported in 2018(2) ALD(Crl.) 447, Avva Venkata Rama Rao and another Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein our Hon’ble High Court at paras 1,15,16,19,20 held as follows:

“1.The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5575 of 2018 are Accused Nos.5 and 8; the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5576 of 2018 are Accused Nos.6, 9 and 12 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.5596 of 2018 is Accused No.10 in Crime No.31 of 2015 of Chinna Chowk Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 508, 197 and 120-B R/w.34 of IPC and Section 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.” “15. Thus, the law is clear from the said expression that once an application is made by the accused, after expiry of the statutory period of remand from non-filing of the charge sheet, he is entitled to the default bail and such a right cannot even be defeated by filing of charge sheet thereafter. So, the filing of the application either orally or in writing is a prerequisite, if not the Court chosen to grant the default bail, and once such an application is there, in recognition of his indefeasible right, he is entitled to the default bail and that can no way be delayed even in its disposal, as referred supra.” “16. This Court in Singamala Shankarnar Vs. State of A.P (2007 (1) ALT (Crl.) 226) categorically observed that where the imprisonment is ten years and below the pe-riod of filing charge sheet from the date of remand is 60 days, from which 6 there is indefeasible right to claim default bail accrues and for that conclusion referred sev-eral earlier expressions of the Apex Court even.” “19. Accordingly and in the result all the three Criminal Petitions are allowed by granting the statutory bail to the petitioners accused supra, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioners shall execute a self-bond for Rs.25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thou-sand only] with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judge (concerned Court). The bonds to be obtained are not only to appear before the Court for enquiry or trial and even after trial to appear before revisional or appellate Courthor other superior Court - vide decision in Pre-Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur Vs. State of Delhi (1982 (2) APLJ (43) SC); so that at stage of committal or other proceedings obtaining of fresh bonds from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and solvencies earlier produced are ratifying and in existence and enforceable, without even insisting their further presence, such re-course quickens the proceedings at other stages before that Court or other Court without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of Section 437A CrPC

2. Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer on every Sunday between 5.00 P.M. to 6.00 P.M. after filing of charge sheet and later once in a month on ev-ery first Sunday, for assurance of their availability to safeguard the interest of the prosecution of jumping bail and interference with witnesses, until further orders being passed by the learned trial Judge relaxing the same, empowering him by virtue of this order.

3. Petitioners shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not, their bail shall be cancelled forthwith, without any further or-der 7 so that, the learned Judge concerned can also issue NBW by canceling the bail from the power under section 439 [2] CrPC. delegated by this order during pen-dency of proceedings before the Court.

4. Petitioners shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permis-sion of the learned trial

Judge.

5. Petitioners shall furnish their full address with property and bank account par-ticulars and submit their passport/s, if any, after enlargement of bail on the next hearing date or at such time granted by trial court and

before the Court concerned (for collecting by police as

part of their duty to investigate-also the means of ac- cused and to furnish the same in the final report of investigation to enable the trial Court in the event of considering the need of awarding compensation under section 357 CrPC so to award from such material and evidence, apart from securing pres-ence and obtaining of bonds with sureties under section 437A CrPC. etc.), failing which, it is open to the learned Judge concerned by virtue of the power conferred by this order to cancel their bail.

6. The bail now granted is since a regular one till end of trial (without prejudice to the right to cancel meanwhile in case of need and/or for non-compliance of conditions supra) any absence of petitioner/s as accused for hearing/enquiry or trial, is-suance of non bailable warrant-NBW (unless cancelled before execution) and even its execution and production of accused as per the NBW; that does not tantamount to cancellation of bail including from the wording of Sec.439(2) CrPC. and as such in such event no fresh bail application can be entertained. As it tantamount to only cancellation of bail bonds earlier executed, (leave about the power of the Court to issue surety notices by 8 forfeiting bonds and for imposing penalty on the bonds for-feited); the proper course is to direct the accused to work out the remedy to pay penalty on the previous forfeited bonds as per Section 441 to 446 CrPC. and to submit fresh solvencies with self bonds for enlarging them by release from custody on payment of penalty of the earlier bonds forfeited without need of enforcing against earlier sureties again.

“20. In consequence, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Petitions shall stand closed.”

08.Since it is undisputed fact that petitioner/A1 is in judicial custody for more than 60 days and police did not file charge sheet so far and since

Crl.M.P. averments reveals that he is ready to furnish surety, petitioner is entitled to statutory bail.

09.In the result, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed by enlarging the petitioner on bail on condition that he shall not leave India and shall attend before Investigating Officer for every 15 days and on execution of personal bond for Rs.5,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajampet.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI,

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA. To

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet

Copy to the learned counsel for petitioner/accused.

9

P a g e 1

APKD000013112025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present:

Dr.C.YAMINI,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

Wednesday on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Tr.Crl.M.P.No. 207 / 202 5

Andhe Chinnakondaiahgari Chinna Ramanaiah.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. Andhe Chinnakondaiahgari Narasimhulu.

2. State: S.H.O. Mydukur U/G P.S.

... Respondents

This petition is coming on 11.03.2026 for hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri K.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2 and after perusing the records on file and on hearing and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.Petitioner herein filed this petition U/Sec.408(2) Cr.P.C to transfer

C.C. No.339/2020 from the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mydukur to Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur to try the same along with S.C. No.200/2023 by stating that they are case and counter case arose out of same conflict and if two separate courts pronounce judgments, there is chance to get conflicting judgments.

P a g e 2

2. R1 refused to receive notice and did not appear.

3. R2 reports no counter.

4. None of the witnesses were examined on either side and no documents were marked on either side.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek withdrawal

of C.C. No.339/2020 from the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur to Assistant

Sessions Judge, Proddatur to conduct simultaneous

trial as prayed for?

P O I N T:

6. Perused Charge Sheet filed in Calendar Case and Sessions Case.

Charge Sheet in C.C. No.339/2020 reveals A1, A3, A4 are LWs.1 to 3 in

S.C. No.200/2023. So also A1 in SC No.200/2023 is LW1 in

C.C.No.339/2020. Moreover, scene of offence in both crimes is one and the same and time and date of offence is one and the same and so also crime numbers are Crime No.253/2015 and Crime No.254/2015 of

Mydukur Police Station.

7. Under the above circumstances, considering the fact that Crime

No.253/2015 of Mydukur Police Station and Crime No.254/2015 of

Mydukur Police Station are case and counter case, to avoid conflicting judgments, withdrawal of C.C.No.339/2020 from the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur to conduct simultaneous trial with

S.C.No.200/2023 meets the ends of justice.

P a g e 3

8. In the result, Transfer Crl.M.P. is allowed by withdrawing

C.C.No.339/2020 from the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mydukur to Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur to conduct simultaneous trial along with S.C. No.200/2023 on its file.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- C.YAMINI

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

A P P E N D I X O F E V I D E N C E

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- C.YAMINI

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Kadapa. Copy to:-

1. Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur.

2. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur. .