Chilam Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao III Additional Sessions Judge,

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No. 562 of 2026

Cr.No. 82 of 2026 of Tadepalli Police Station

Between : Tiruveedhula Kousalya Devi, W/o Sambasivarao, Hindu, aged about 46 years, R/o D.No.23-3/1, 8th Line, Bhagath Singh Nagar, Yanamalakuduru, Vijayawada (Rural), Krishna District

... Petitioner/ Accused

-And- The State: S.H.O., Tadepalli P.S.,

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before this Court on 6.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sekhar Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner/ accused and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made thefollowing:

O R D E R

The petitioner filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in anticipation of her arrest in Crime No.82/2026 of

Arundelpet Police Station for the offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNS-2023’).

2. Notice is given to the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor.

3. A brief reference to factual position would suffice to dispose of the present petition is :

2

The complainant Nune Venkatesh, who is working as Branch

Manager, Indian Bank, Tadepalli stated in his report given to police that the accused Tiruveedula Kousalya Devi W/o Sambasiva Rao, Navodaya colony, Tadepalli pledged spurious gold items in Indian Bank as gold items and availed gold loans i.e., on 29.5.2025 pledged 101.20 grms of gold jewels items and availed loan of Rs.5,74,000/-; on 29.5.2025 pledged 90.90 grms of gold jewel items and availed loan of Rs.5,12,000/-, on 31.5.2025 pledged 86.10 grms of gold jewel items and availed loan of

Rs.4,70,000/-, on 3.6.2025 pledged 73.20 grms of gold jewel items and availed loan of Rs.4,10,000/-, and in total she pledged 351.40 grms of gold gewels and availed total loan amount of Rs.19,66,000/- and cheated the bank and the role of the gold appraiser is also suspected. Hence, the report.

4)Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the petitioner is innocent and she did not commit any offences as alleged and she is falsely implicated in this case; that the ingredients of the sections on which the complaint is registered are not attracting the facts of the case; that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the gold ornaments consisting of four bangles weighing approximately 101.20 grms; that in the year, 2024 for meeting her family expenses, she pledged the said gold ornaments and availed loan and prior to sanctioning the loan, the ornaments were verified, evaluated and appraised by the authorised appraiser of the bank and thereafter only loan was sanctioned with the approval of the bank officials. Thereafter, on 29.5.2025, the gold loan account was renewed for Rs.5,74,000/- under jewel loan after due verification and confirmation of the pledged jewellary. On receipt of urgent notice on 7.11.2025 the petitioner went to the bank, there the bank officials intimated and threatened the petitioner that they would implicate 3 her and her husband name in a false case if the loan was not cleared.

Hence she deposited Rs.3,50,000/- by borrowing the same. The petitioner unauthorisedly transferred Rs.1,00,000/- to the savings bank account of her daughter maintained by her in the same bank and thereafter they closed the jewel loan A/No.8-47532705 and returned four bangles to the petitioner. Thereafter on suspicion, the petitioner tested the said gold ornaments in Sri Datt Gold Check, Vijayawada and found that they are not genuine gold. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Tadepalli police station to lodge report repeatedly from 7.11.2025 to 11.11.2025, but the police failed to register the case. On that the petitioner got issued Legal notice

dated 12.11.2025 to the Zonal Manager and Branch Manager, Indian

Bank demanding for return of her gold ornaments, but there is no response. Thereafter, the petitioner gave representation to S.P., Guntur.

The petitioner handed over her jewellary to SHO, Tadepalli P.S., even after endorsement of S.P., Guntur the Tadepalli police did not take any action. The bank officials cheated the petitioner by knowingly returning the fake gold jewellary. On receipt of legal notice, the bank Zonal Office issued show cause notice dated 2.3.2026 to the petitioner with false allegations stating that the gold ornaments pledged in three other gold loan accounts pending with them are spurious. On that the petitioner filed a private complaint before I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri against the bank officials in CFR.No.1270/2026. The petitioner is having fixed place of abode and having sufficient sureties and she is apprehending arrest in the hands of police and prayed this court to grant anticipatory bail.

5)In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the investigation in this case is not yet completed and it is at crucial stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined and if 4 the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, the investigation cannot be completed and the petitioner is involved in some other criminal cases and prayed this court to dismiss the petition.

6) On the strength of above, the point to be determined is :

“Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to bail in anticipation of her arrest under Sections 482 of BNSS, 2023 for the offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of

BNS ?”

7) Point:-

i) Having considered the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of material on record, it is seen that basing on the report lodged by the complainant, a case in crime No.82/2026 of Tadepalli

Police station was registered against the petitioner herein and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of BNS.

ii) As per contents of FIR, Case Diary and also other material available on record, it is seen that the accused Tiruveedula Kousalya Devi

W/o Sambasiva Rao, Navodaya colony, Tadepalli pledged spurious gold items in Indian Bank as gold items and availed gold loans i.e., on 29.5.2025 pledged 101.20 grms of gold jewel items and availed loan of

Rs.5,74,000/-; on 29.5.2025 pledged 90.90 grms of gold jewel items and availed loan of Rs.5,12,000/-, on 31.5.2025 pledged 86.10 grms of gold jewel items and availed loan of Rs.4,70,000/-, on 3.6.2025 pledged 73.20 grms of gold jewel items and availed loan of Rs.4,10,000/-, and in total she pledged 351.40 grms of gold jewellary and availed total loan amount of Rs.19,66,000/- and cheated the bank by pledging spurious gold 5 jewellary. Hence, the report.

iii) The case diary further reveals that the petitioner herein

Kousalya Devi and gold appraiser Janjanam Ravinder Nath criminally conspired with each other and when Kousalya Devi brought the spurious gold ornaments to bank for availing loan by pledging the same, the bank gold appraiser Ravindra nadh certified them as 22 carets jewels and made to grant jewel loans. The case diary further reveals that the superiors gold was seized from the bank and sent them for RFSL and report is awaited. The case diary further reveals that the present crime is also registered against the Gold Appraiser. The material on record clearly shows that the alleged pledged jewels are not gold ornaments and they are spurious and without custodial investigation of the petitioner, the truth will not come to light. Admittedly there is no dispute as to filing private complaint by the petitioner herein against the bank officials on the file of

Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer a decision in Adri Dharan

Das Vs. State of W.B. reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court cases 303,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“The power exercisable under Section 438 is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty, then power is to be exercised under section 438.”

As per the above said decision, the power under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C now Section 482 of BNSS is extraordinary in character and it can 6 be exercised in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. As per the Case diary, the petitioner and the bank appraiser conspired with each other and obtained jewel loan by pledging the suprious gold and thereby cheated the bank officials and still the investigation is under progress and the petitioner herein also influenced the accused in other crimes and made them to pledge spurious gold in the bank and obtained loans and thereby it is not a fit case where any order in terms of Section 482 of BNSS can be passed granting bail in anticipation of her arrest. Hence, this point is answered against the petitioner.

8. The Criminal Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

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

/- (Sd/- CH Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao)

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR Present: Sri Y.Naga Raja, II Additional Sessions Judge, I/c III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur Monday, the 18th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.681 of 2026

Cr.No. 136 of 2026 of Nagarampalem Police Station

Between:-

1.Devarakonda Swarup Sagar, S/o Sudarsanam, aged about 25 years, Caste : Madiga, Christian, R/o D.No.1st lane, KVP Colony, Guntur City, Guntur District

2.Devarakonda Sasi Kumar, S/o Sudarsanam, aged about 27 years, Caste : Madiga, R/o D.No.13/2 nd lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur City, Guntur District

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

-And- The State SHO, Sub Inspector of Police, Ngarampalem Police Station, Guntur

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before me on 14.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri D. Rosaiah, Advocate for the Petitioners/ accused Nos.1 & 2 and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made thefollowing:

O R D E R

This Petition is filed on behalf of Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in Crime No.136/2026 of

Nagarampalem Police Station for the offences under Section 109(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity BNS-2023).

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor received the notice and opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

2

3. Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

4. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for

grant of bail for the alleged offence under Section 109(1) r/w

3 (5) of BNS in Cr.No.136 of 2026 of Nagarampalem Police

Station, as prayed for?”

5. POINT ANSWERED:-

As seen from the Case Diary, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.2026 at about 19.15 hours in Nirmala Wine Shop, Near

Kankarugunta Gate, Nagarampalem, Guntur Town, the defacto complainant along with his friend Maruthi Purna Chandra Rao went to the said wine shop and purchased alcohol, went to the permit room on the first floor to consume. By that time, three male persons were consuming liquor in one room and making lot of noise and to avoid them, the defacto complainant and his friend went to another room.

While they were consuming liquor, one person having beard (A1) came from another room, entered into their room and aggressively asked the friend of defacto complainant “why he was staring at him, for which he denied. Then the said person’s father tried to stop the quarrel, but accused No.1 refused and threatened the defacto complainant that he would kill them on the spot. Then accused No.2, who is the brother of the accused No.1 also entered into the room, abused them, thrown a plastic chair and threatened them. Accused No.2 broken a beer bottle on the table and tried to attack the friend of the defacto complainant, abused him and threatened him to kill. But, he managed to escape after some time. When the defacto complainant also tried to flee, but both the accused beat him with fists, lifted him upside down and tried to 3 throw him from the first floor while abusing him vulgarly and threatened him to kill, then the staff of Wine Shop intervened and rescued the defacto complainant. Even after coming to down stairs, both the accused caught hold him on the road, thrown him down and accused

No.2 sat on his chest and continued to beat him. Then the staff of shop rescued him and due to fear of life, the defacto complainant ran away from the spot and admitted in the Govt. General Hospital, Guntur.

Basing on the report of the defacto complainant a case in Cr.No.136 of 2026 of Nagarampalem Police Station for the offence under Section 109 (1) r/w 3(5) of BNS was registered.

6. In the bail petition, the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 contended that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. That the petitioners contend that there was no intention to kill the complainant and no dangerous weapon was used and the alleged confession is inadmissible in evidence. The petitioners further contend that injuries, if any, sustained are simple in nature. The petitioners contend that material part of investigation is completed and they are having fixed place of abode and having sufficient solvent sureties, and prayed to grant bail.

7. On perusal of record, a case in Cr.No.136 of 2026 of

Nagarampalem Police Station was registered under Sections 109 (1) r/w 3 (5) of BNS was registered on the allegation that on 19.4.2026 around 7.15 p.m., when the defacto complainant and his friend were consuming liquor at Nirmala Wine Shop, Near Kankaragunta Gate,

Guntur both the accused abused them, beat them and tried to kill them by throwing the defacto complainant from the first floor. During the course of investigation, both the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 & 2 were 4 arrested on 20.4.2026 and produced them before the learned

Magistrate on 21.4.2026 and since then they have been in judicial

custody. In this case, the investigating officer has examined seven eye witnesses and also visited the scene of offence, seized the broken beer bottle under the cover of scene observation report and also prepared rough sketch and confessional statement of both the accused was also recorded in the presence of independent mediators. Since the material part of the investigation is completed and eye witnesses were examined, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and to threaten the prosecution witnesses. By considering the stage of investigation and period of remand in judicial custody, this court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed, granting bail to the

Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 with the following conditions:

i) the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall execute a bond for

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Spl. Mobile Court, Guntur, ii)the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall always be available for investigation, iii)the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not cause threat to the witnesses, and iv)the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

v) the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall be available to the

Investigating Agency and shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Monday and Friday in between 10.00 a.m to 5 p.m 5 for a period of three months, or till filing of the Charge Sheet, whichever is earlier.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18 th day of May, 2026. (Sd/- Sri Y. Nagaraja) II Additional Sessions Judge, I/c III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Copy to: 1.Spl. Mobile Court, Guntur. 2.The Station House Officer, Nagarampalem P.S. Uploaded through: 1.eCourts via Case Information System. 2.email to concerned jail authorities.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: Sri Y.Naga Raja,

II Additional Sessions Judge, I/c.III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur

Monday, the 18 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No. 724 of 2026

Cr.No. 77 of 2026 of Sattenapalli Town Police Station

Between :

1.Kataru Gopala Krishna, S/o Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged about 20 years, Coolie works

2.Kuchipudi Suresh @ Nani, S/o Babu, Hindu, aged about 20 years, coolie works, Both are R/o Near Anjaneya Swamy temple, Vaddavalli- Sattenapalli Town and Mandal, Palnadu District

... Petitioners/A1 and A2

-And- State : Sattenapalli Town P.S., Rep. By Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sattenapalli

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before this Court on 15.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Ajay Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner/ accused Nos.1 & 2 and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made thefollowing:

O R D E R

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS’) seeking the court to grant bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.77/2026 of Sattenapalli Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 115(2),109(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita ( for brevity, ‘BNS’).

2

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor received the notice and opposed the bail petition of the petitioners.

3. Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioners, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

4. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for

grant of bail for the alleged offences under Sections 115(2) and 109

(1) r/w 3 (5) of BNS in Cr.No.77 of 2026 of Sattenapalli Town Police

Station, as prayed for?”

5. POINT ANSWERED:-

As seen from the Case Diary, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.3.2026 at 15.30 hours at backside of Abhiruchi Family Restaurant,

Sattenapalli, the defacto complainant went behind the said restaurant to smoke cigarette and at that time two unknown male persons, aged between 22 to 26 years were urinating there. The defacto complainant told them not to urinate there as ladies are working in the restaurant and asked them to leave the said place, for which, they questioned him saying “who are you to tell us or are you the owner”, for which he replied that he is not the owner, but he is working in the said restaurant. For the said reply, they became aggressive and stated that you are just a supplier, why you are talking too much and suddenly attacked him, beat him with hands and when the defacto complainant questioned them that why they are beating him, for which they threatened him saying that they will not just beat him, they will also kill him and further stated that earlier also, the defacto complainant argued with them and insulted them and they further stated that people like the defacto complainant should not tell them where to sit, drink or urinate and with an intention to kill him, one of the accused 3 picked up beer bottle, hit on his head and caused bleeding injury and both of them assaulted him mercilessly, punched on his face, due to which he sustained swelling injury near left eye. On intervention of co-workers, they left the said place and then the defacto complainant was shifted to Govt.

Hospital, Sattenapalli for treatment. Basing on his statement, a case in

Cr.No.77/2026 under Sections 115(2), 109(1) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S., was registered.

6. In the bail petition, the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 have contended that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case; that there is no truth in the mediatornama and the same is a fabricated one; that the petitioners / accused Nos.1 & 2 are daily labourer and their respective family depends upon their income; that material part of investigation is completed and he is having fixed place of abode and that he is ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties and prays to grant bail.

7. On perusal of record, a case in Cr.No.77of 2026 of Sattenapalli

Town Police Station was registered under Sections 115(2),109(1) r/w 3 (5) of BNS was registered against the petitioners on the allegation that on 21.3.2026 at Abhiruchi Family Restaurant, Sattenapalli Town, both the accused Nos.1 & 2 quarreled with the defacto complainant when he questioned them for urinating backside of the restaurant, they assaulted him with hands and one of the accused picked up a broken beer bottle and beat him with the said bottle on his head and caused bleeding injury and threatened to kill him. In this case, the accused Nos.1 & 2 were arrested on 04.04.2026 and produced before the learned Magistrate and since then they have been in judicial custody. The investigating officer has examined eight material witnesses, observed the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report, rough sketch and criminating material 4 i.e., small pieces of stone and broken beer bottle and also recorded the confessional statement of both the accused Nos.1 & 2 in the presence of mediators and the material part of the investigation is completed. By considering the stage of investigation and the period of remand since 4.4.2026, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed, granting bail to the Petitioners /

Accused Nos.1 & 2 with the following conditions:

i) the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class – Cum – I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli, ii) the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall always be available for investigation; iii) the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not cause threat to the witnesses; iv) the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not indulge in any criminal activities; and

v) the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall be available to the

Investigating Agency and shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Monday in between 10.00 a.m to 5 p.m for a period of three months, or till filing of the Charge Sheet, whichever is earlier.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18 th of May, 2026.

(Sd/- Y. Nagaraja) II Addl. Sessions Judge,Guntur. I/c III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur Copy to:

1. The I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli.

2. The Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Town Police Station. Uploaded through: eCourts via Case Information System. email to concerned jail authorities nal Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao III Additional Sessions Judge,

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No. 564 of 2026

Cr.No. 86 of 2026 of Tadepalli Police Station

Between : Battu Rajesh, S/o Jayarao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/o 5-18, Praturu village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur district

... Petitioner/ Accused

-And- The State: S.H.O., Tadepalli P.S.,

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before this Court on 6.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sekhar Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner/ accused and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made thefollowing:

O R D E R

The petitioner filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in anticipation of her arrest in Crime No.86/2026 of

Arundelpet Police Station for the offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNS-2023’).

2. Notice is given to the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor.

3. A brief reference to factual position would suffice to dispose of the present petition is :

The complainant Nune Venkatesh, who is working as Branch 2

Manager,Indian Bank, Tadepalli stated in his report given to police that the accused Battu Rajesh S/o Jayarao, R/o Tadepalli pledged spurious gold items in Indian Bank as gold items and availed gold loans i.e., on 28.5.2025 gold items weighing 92.70 grms and availed loan of

Rs.5,25,000/-, on 28.5.2025 gold items weighing 85.10 grms and availed loan of Rs.4,87,000/-, on 30.5.2025 gold items weighing 93.10 grms and availed loan of Rs.5,35,000/-, totally he pledged 270.90 grms of gold and availed total loan of Rs.15,47,000/- and cheated the bank and the role of the gold appraiser is also suspected. Hence, the report.

4)Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the petitioner is innocent and did not commit any offences as alleged and he is falsely implicated in this case; that the ingredients of the sections on which the complaint is registered are not attracting the facts of the case; that the petitioner is having fixed place of abode and having sufficient sureties and he is apprehending arrest in the hands of police and prayed this court to grant anticipatory bail.

5)In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the investigation in this case is not yet completed and it is at crucial stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, the investigation cannot be completed and prayed this court to dismiss the petition.

6) On the strength of above, the point to be determined is :

“Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to bail in anticipation of his arrest under Sections 482 of BNSS, 2023 for the offences under

Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of BNS ?” 3

7) Point:-

i) Having considered the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of material on record, it is seen that basing on the report lodged by the complainant, a case in crime No.86/2026 of Tadepalli

Police station was registered against the petitioner herein and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of BNS.

ii) As per contents of FIR, case diary and also material available on record, it is seen that the accused Battu Rajesh S/o Jayarao, R/o

Tadepalli pledged spurious gold items on different dates i.e., on on 28.5.2025 gold items weighing 92.70 grms and availed loan of

Rs.5,25,000/-, on 28.5.2025 gold items weighing 85.10 grms and availed loan of Rs.4,87,000/-, on 30.5.2025 gold items weighing 93.10 grms and availed loan of Rs.5,35,000/-, totally he pledged 270.90 grms of gold and availed total loan of Rs.15,47,000/- and cheated the bank by pledging spurious gold jewellary.

iii) The case diary reveals that the petitioner herein Battu

Rajesh and gold appraiser Janjanam Ravinder Nath criminally conspired with each other and when Battu Rajesh brought the spurious gold ornaments to bank for availing loan by pledging the same, the bank gold appraiser Ravindra Nadh certified them as 22 carets jewels and made to grant jewel loans. The case diary further reveals that the spurious gold was seized from the bank and sent them for RFSL and report is awaited.

The case diary further reveals that the present crime is also registered against the Gold Appraiser. The material on record clearly shows that the alleged pledged jewels ae not gold ornaments and they are spurious and without custodial investigation of the petitioner, the truth will not come to 4 light.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer a decision in Adri Dharan

Das Vs. State of W.B. reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court cases 303,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“The power exercisable under Section 438 is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty, then power is to be exercised under section 438.”

As per the above said decision, the power under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C now Section 482 of BNSS is extraordinary in character and it can be exercised in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. As per the Case diary, the petitioner and the bank appraiser conspired with each other and obtained jewel loan by pledging the spurious gold and thereby cheated the bank officials and still the investigation is under progress and thereby it is not a fit case where any order in terms of Section 482 of BNSS can be passed granting bail in anticipation of her arrest. Hence, this point is answered against the petitioner.

8. The Criminal Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

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

/- (Sd/- CH Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao)

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao III Additional Sessions Judge,

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No. 563 of 2026

Cr.No. 87 of 2026 of Tadepalli Police Station

Between : Battu Ramya, W/o Rajesh, Hindu, aged about 36 years, R/o 5-18, Praturu village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District

... Petitioner/ Accused

-And- The State: S.H.O., Tadepalli P.S.,

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before this Court on 6.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sekhar Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner/ accused and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made thefollowing:

O R D E R

The petitioner filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in anticipation of her arrest in Crime No.82/2026 of

Arundelpet Police Station for the offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNS-2023’).

2. Notice is given to the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor.

3. A brief reference to factual position would suffice to dispose of the present petition is :

The complainant Nune Venkatesh, who is working as Branch 2

Manager,Indian Bank, Tadepalli stated in his report given to police that the accused Battu Ramya W/o Jayarao, R/o Tadepalli pledged spurious gold items weighing about 89.60 grms., in Indian Bank as gold items and availed gold loan of Rs.5,10,000/- on 13.6.2025 and cheated the bank and the role of the gold appraiser is also suspected. Hence, the report.

4)Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the petitioner is innocent and she did not commit any offences as alleged and she is falsely implicated in this case; that the ingredients of the sections on which the complaint is registered are not attracting the facts of the case; that the petitioner is having fixed place of abode and having sufficient sureties and she is apprehending arrest in the hands of police and prayed this court to grant anticipatory bail.

5)In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the investigation in this case is not yet completed and it is at crucial stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, the investigation cannot be completed and prayed this court to dismiss the petition.

6) On the strength of above, the point to be determined is :

“Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to bail in anticipation of her arrest under Sections 482 of BNSS, 2023 for the offences under

Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of BNS ?”

7) Point:-

i) Having considered the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of material on record, it is seen that basing on the report lodged by the complainant, a case in crime No.87/2026 of Tadepalli 3

Police station was registered against the petitioner herein and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(4), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of BNS.

ii) As per contents of FIR, Case Diary and also material available on record, it is seen that the accused Battu Ramya W/o Rajesh,

R/o Tadepalli pledged spurious gold items weighing about 89.60 grms in

Indian Bank as gold items and availed gold loan of Rs.5,10,000/- on 7.11.2025 and cheated the bank by pledging spurious gold jewellary.

iii) The case diary reveals that the petitioner herein Battu

Ramya and gold appraiser Janjanam Ravinder Nath criminally conspired with each other and brought the spurious gold ornaments to bank for availing loan, the bank gold appraiser Ravindra nadh certified them as 22 carets jewels and made to grant jewel loans. The case diary further reveals that the petitioner’s husband is involved in other criminal case vide Cr.No.86/2026 of Tadepalli P.S. The case diary further reveals that the spurious gold was seized from the bank and sent them for RFSL and report is awaited. The case diary further reveals that the present crims I also registered against the Gold Appraiser. The material on record clearly shows that the alleged pledged jewels ae not gold ornaments and they are spurious and without custodial investigation of the petitioner, the truth will not come to light.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer a decision in Adri Dharan

Das Vs. State of W.B. reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court cases 303,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“The power exercisable under Section 438 is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely 4 implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty, then power is to be exercised under section 438.”

As per the above said decision, the power under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C now Section 482 of BNSS is extraordinary in character and it can be exercised in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. As per the Case diary, the petitioner and the bank appraiser conspired with each other and obtained jewel loan by pledging the suprious gold and thereby cheated the bank officials and still the investigation is under progress and thereby it is not a fit case where any order in terms of Section 482 of BNSS can be passed granting bail in anticipation of her arrest. Hence, this point is answered against the petitioner.

8. The Criminal Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

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

/- (Sd/- CH Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao)

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.