Sri G. Chakrapani

1 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Present : G.Chakrapani

Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, on this 5th day of August, 2025.

INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.19 OF 2017.

Between: Kalaala Venkata Shiva Rao, S/o.Appa Rao, Aged about 29 years, Business, R/o.Vangipuram Village, Prattipadu Mandal, Guntur District.… Petitioner

- AND -

1. Katti Venkata Siva Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Business, R/o. Door No.4-8-51, Near Gandhi Statue Center, Koritepadu, Guntur City, Presently at Kalavakur Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Vankayala Sunitha, W/o.Ramana Reddy, Aged about 34 years, House wife, R/o.Nagambotlavari Palem, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Kandepu Sri Devi, W/o.Murali Krishna, Aged about 34 years, House wife, R/o. Door NO.13-30/92, Plot No.169, Sai Nagar Colony, Beramguda, Aminpur, Pattan Cheruvu, Medak District, Telangana State.

4. Karasani Koteswari, W/o.Srinivasa Reddy, Aged about 36 years, House wife, R/o. Door No.4-8-51, Kilarivari Street, Gandhi Statue Center, Koritepadu, Guntur City.… Respondents 2 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017

This petition is came on 30-06-2025 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Sanjeeva Reddy, Smt. A.Rama Devi, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 having remained exparte and upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This Creditor IP is filed under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency

Act (in short “PI Act”), seeking declaration that the 1st respondent is an insolvent as he committed the acts of insolvency and for a declaration that the registered sale deeds executed by the 1st respondent bearing

Nos.4665/2015 dated:03.12.2015 in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of Item No.1 of the petition schedule property and No.350/2016

dated: 12.01.2016 in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of Item No.2

of the petition schedule property; and No.188/2016 dated: 18.01.2016 in favour of the 4th respondent in respect of Item No.3 of the petition schedule property as sham, nominal, collusive and invalid and to set aside them, for costs and such other reliefs.

2.The petitioner’s contention, in brief, is thus:

On 02.08.2015, the 1st respondent borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the petitioner for his business expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum yearly rests and executed a promissory note to that effect. Later, despite several demands, he did not choose to repay the said debt and he has been postponing the repayment on one 3 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 pretext or the other. However, finally, the 1st respondent issued a cheque bearing No.163382 dated: 17.01.2016 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on ICICI

Bank, Guntur in favour of the petitioner towards part payment of the debt due. The petitioner presented the same, but it was dishonoured.

Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice dated: 20.01.2016 to the 1st respondent for dishonouring the said cheque, but in vain. Thus, the petitioner initiated the steps against the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Negotiable Instructions Act in a Court of Law. While so, the 1st respondent started making hectic attempts to alienate his properties in favour of his kith and kin like the respondents 2 to 4 for no consideration or for little consideration with an intention to defraud the petitioner and to delay the process of execution in case his suit in

OS.30/2016 on the file of II Additional District Court, Guntur which is filed

for a sum of Rs.16,80,500/- is decreed in his favour. The said suit was filed on 02.02.2016 and on the same day, the petitioner got the petition schedule properties and some other properties belonging to the 1st respondent, in IA.262/2016 attached. In the 2nd week of February, 2016 the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent executed collusive and nominal documents in favour of respondents 2 to 4 to create obstacles to the petitioner in recovery of his amount. The said alienations are nominal and null and void. The 1st respondent undervalued the schedule properties to defraud his creditors, with an ulterior motive.

4 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017

However, to avoid unnecessary litigation, the petitioner got issued a notice dated: 15.02.2016 to all the respondents informing the above facts and called them to get the said sale deeds cancelled or to discharge the debt due to him. The 2nd respondent having received the said notice kept quiet and however, the other respondents got the notices returned with false endorsements. The respondents should not be allowed to enter into any further documents for any purpose in respect of the petition schedule properties either in whole or in part. Better counsels and best mediations proved futile. Hence, this petition.

3.The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 remained exparte. The respondent No.3 filed her counter and his contention, in brief, is thus:

All the allegations in the petition are all false. The 3rd respondent is the bonafide purchaser for valuable and consideration of

Item No.2 of the petition schedule property. She is a resident of

Hyderabad and she has no friendship or relationship with the 1st respondent. Since Item No.2 is located in the Capital City of Andhra

Pradesh after enquiry, the 2nd respondent purchased the same as real estate is growing in that area. It is false to state that the sale deed dated:

12.01.2016 in Doc.No.350/2016 of SRO, Guntur was brought into existence collusively. In fact, the other respondents are either relatives or friends of the 1st respondent. Therefore, they might have brought into existence the other documents relating to Item Nos.1 and 3 of the petition 5 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 schedule property. So far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, she is a stranger to the respondents and as such, she is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this proceedings. Therefore, this IP is liable to be dismissed against this respondent and hence, this IP may be dismissed against this 3rd respondent.

4.During enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A19 are marked. The 3rd respondent did not let- in any evidence.

5.Heard arguments on both sides.

6.Now the points arise for determination are:

1)Whether the petitioner is entitled for adjudication of the 1st respondent as an insolvent?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for annulment of the sale deeds executed in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 of the petition schedule properties in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

7.POINT NO.1:

In so far as this point is concerned, as per Section 9 of the

Provincial Insolvency Act, the petitioner needs to establish that the 1st respondent has got a debt of more than Rs.500/-, that he committed the acts of insolvency, and that this IP is filed within three months from the 6 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 said acts of insolvency. This Insolvency Petition is filed on 29.02.2016.

According to the petitioner, the disputed transactions took place on 03.12.2015, 12.01.2016 and 18.01.2016. Therefore, it is clear that this petition is filed within the period of limitation. Thus, one requisite mandated under Section 9 of the PI Act has been established. In so far as the indebtedness of the 1st respondent over Rs.500/- is concerned, to prove the same, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and the scribe of Ex.A1-promissory note as PW2. In fact, the 1st respondent remained exparte and as such, the petitioner need not take unnecessary pains in proving the liability of the 1st respondent as a debtor of an amount of more than Rs.500/-. His remaining exparte amounts to an admission of the case of the petitioner. However, PW1 would reiterate all the material averments in the petition that, on 02.08.2015, the 1st respondent borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A1-promissory note for Rs.15,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a.

According to him, the 1st respondent borrowed the said amount for his business purpose and that later, the 1st respondent issued a cheque for

Rs.15,00,000/- on 17.01.2016 as in Ex.A2 and that the petitioner presented the same as in Ex.A3 on 20.01.2016 and that the said cheque was dishonoured and therefore, he got issued a legal notice dated:

20.01.2016 to the 1st respondent as in Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 is the postal receipt with regarding to the said legal notice. He exhibited the cheque 7 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 return memo as in Ex.A17. Exs.A18 and A19 are the certified copies of the decree and judgment of the II Additional District Judge’s Court, Guntur in OS.30/2016. Exs.A18 and A19 show that the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner herein and against the 1st respondent herein for a sum of Rs.16,80,500/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the

principal sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree

and thereafter @ 6% p.a., on the said sum of Rs.15,00,000/- till the date of realization. Thus, the liability of the 1st respondent to the petitioner for an amount of more than Rs.500/- which is another mandatory requisite under Section 9 of the PI Act has also been established.

(a)PW2 would corroborate the evidence of PW1 about borrowing of Rs.15,00,000/- by the 1st respondent from PW1 and his scribing of Ex.A1-promissory note at that time. The 3rd respondent cross- examined PW1 and PW2 with regard to her purchase of Item No.2 of the petition schedule property for consideration to establish that she is a bonafide purchaser. Her cross-examination does not dispute the borrowing of the amount by the 1st respondent from the petitioner as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, the testimonies of PW1 and 2 clearly establish that the 1st respondent borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the petitioner under Ex.A1-promissory note and that later when he failed to repay the said amount, he filed a suit for recovery of the said amount and that the said suit was decreed against the 1st respondent herein and in 8 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 favour of the petitioner herein as in Exs.A18 and A19. Therefore, it is clear that the 1st respondent is liable to pay more than Rs.500/- to the petitioner. In fact, it is enough if the liability of the 1st respondent is ascertained and it need not be declared for the purpose of this IP.

However, it is evident that the second requisite under Section 9 of the PI

Act has also been ascertained. So far as the act of insolvency committed by the 1st respondent is concerned, the very execution of the sale deeds by the 1st respondent in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 with regard to

Items 1 to 3 of the petition schedule properties would establish the said fact. However, in so far as the Item No.2 of the petition schedule property is concerned, the 3rd respondent would contend that she is a bonafide purchaser. She elicited information during the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 that as per the recitals in Ex.A10-sale deed regarding Item No.2 is concerned, the 3rd respondent paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and another sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of two cheques respectively and also another sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash to the respondent and that those details are found in Ex.A10-sale deed itself. It is also elicited that there is no relationship between the respondents 1 and 3. Therefore, it was suggested to the said witnesses that the 3rd respondent is a bonafide purchaser. Of course, PW1 would deny the said suggestion.

(b)During the cross-examination of PW1, it was elicited that the respondents 1 and 4 are relatives and in Ex.A11-sale deed relating to 9 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017

Item No.3 of the petition schedule property is concerned, it is mentioned that the sale consideration was paid in cash only. Such cash payments would create a doubt about the genuineness of the said transaction when the situation demand for entering into collusive transactions. It is further elicited that Ex.A9-sale deed relating to Item No.1 and Ex.A11-sale deed relating to Item No.3 do not contain the recitals that the possession of the properties covered by the said documents was delivered to the vendees.

Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is clear that the properties were not actually delivered to the alleged purchasers since they are nominal and sham documents. Since the said transactions of sale would deprive the petitioner from realizing the amount due to him from the respondent by proceeding against the said properties of the 1st respondent, it is clear that the 1st respondent committed the acts of insolvency. Therefore, I consider, the petitioner successfully established that the 1st respondent has to be adjudicated as an insolvent as he committed the acts of insolvency. Thus, I answer the above point.

8.POINT NO.2:

Now, it is to be seen whether the Court can annul the sale deeds under Exs.A9 to A11 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 in respect of Items 1 to 3 of the petition schedule property as null and void or not. In fact, the evidence indicates that the 3rd respondent who purchased Item No.2 of the petition schedule property 10 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 under Ex.A10-sale deed could be a bonafide purchaser.

(a)But, I consider, the petitioner straight away cannot seek for annulment of the said documents in view of the procedure contemplated under Section 54-A of the PI Act.

Section 54-A reads as under:

“Sec.54-A. By whom petitions for annulment may be made: A petition for the annulment of any transfer under Section 54, or of any transfer, payment, obligation or judicial proceeding under Section 53, may be made by the receiver or, with the leave of the Court, by any creditor who has proved his debt and who satisfies the Court that the receiver has been requested to make such petition.”

The said provision makes it clear that, it is for the receiver to make an application to the Court for annulment of the said documents and if he fails to make such petition to the Court, the creditor can request the receiver to make such application before the Court and even then also if the receiver fails to make such claim, then with the leave of the Court, the creditor directly can make such application for annulment of the said document.

(b)Once a debtor is declared as an insolvent, his properties have to be taken control by the Official Receiver and before the Official

Receiver some other properties which belong to the insolvent adjudged can also be included and some other creditors other than the adjudged insolvent can also come and make claims and the Official Receiver will 11 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 have to consider all the claims of the other creditors also and finally has to come to the conclusion whether they are genuine transactions or sham transactions and if he feels that they are sham transactions, he has to approach the Court and seek the Court for annulment of those transfers.

Therefore at the first instance, it is for the Official Receiver/Receiver to make such application before the Court for annulment of those transfers and not by a creditor directly in a main case. The creditor in a case can approach the Court for annulment only after the Official Receiver failed to make such application or at least after a request made by the creditor to the Official Receiver for making such application before the Court. He can approach the Court only by establishing that the Official Receiver despite a personal request made by him, for making an application for annulment of such transfers before the Court, fails to do so. But such stage has not been reached so far and therefore, the creditor at this stage cannot ask for annulment of the impugned transactions.

(c)Whether the transactions covered by Exs.A9 to A11 are genuine or not, would be decided by the Official Receiver only and the 3rd respondent also has to prove her bonafides only before the Official

Receiver and the Official Receiver would in turn can adjudicate that the transaction of the 3rd respondent is a bonafide one and as such, it need not be annulled and whereas, the transactions in respect of the respondents 2 to 4 are not bonafide transactions and therefore, they are 12 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 liable to be annulled. Any way all those steps have to be taken by the

Official Receiver only and after such adjudication if the Official Receiver does not take any initiation for asking the Court for annulment of those transactions, then only the creditors can come to the Court and seek for annulment of such transactions. At this stage, a prayer of the creditor for annulment of the transactions covered by Exs.A9 to A11 mentioned in second para of the relief portion, has to be considered as pre-mature and as such, it cannot be granted. It shall be left open for proving before the

Official Receiver. Thus, I answer the above point.

9.POINT NO.3:

In view of the discussion and findings in Point Nos.1 and 2, I consider, it is clear that the 1st respondent did the acts of insolvency and thus, he can be adjudicated as an insolvent and therefore, the Official

Receiver has to take possession of all the properties of the 1st respondent for the administration of the said properties and for that purpose, office of this Court is directed to transmit a copy of this petition to him for further action. Publish in Official Gazette. The time for discharge of the 1st respondent from the said adjudication granted is 6 months. Thus, I answer the above point.

10.In the result, this petition is allowed in part, adjudicating the 1st respondent as an insolvent and therefore, the Official Receiver has to 13 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 take possession of all the properties of the 1st respondent for the administration of the said properties and for that purpose, the office of this

Court is directed to transmit a copy of this petition to him for further action. Publish in Official Gazette. The time for discharge of the 1st respondent from the said adjudication granted is 6 months. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 5th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- G.Chakrapani

XII Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

PW1 : K.Venkata Shiva Rao. PW2 : N.Srinivasa Rao.

For Respondents:

None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of promissory note dated: 02.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- executed by 1st respondent in favour of petitioner. Ex.A2 : Certified copy of the cheque dated: 17.01.2016 issued by the 1st respondent for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of petitioner. Ex.A3 : Certified copy of the counter foil dated: 20.01.2016 showing that he has deposited the cheque under Ex.A2 in HDFC Bank for collection. Ex.A4 : Office copy of the legal notice dated: 20.01.2016 got issued by him to the 1st respondent. Ex.A5 : Certified copy of the postal receipt dated: 21.01.2016. Ex.A6 : Certified copy of sale deed dated: 03.07.2013 executed in the name of 1st respondent in respect of Item No.2 of petition schedule property. Ex.A7 : Certified copy of sale deed dated: 27.06.2011 executed in the name of 1st respondent in relation to Items 1 to 3 of petition schedule properties. Ex.A8 : Certified copy of sale deed dated: 23.09.2014 executed in the 14 JFC,GNT, IP.19 of 2017 name of 1st respondent in relation to Item No.4 of petition schedule property. Ex.A9 : Registration extraction of sale deed dated: 03.12.2015 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of Item No.1 of petition schedule property. Ex.A10 : Registration extract of sale deed dated: 12.01.2016 executed by 1st respondent in favour of 3rd respondent in respect of Item No.2 of petition schedule property. Ex.A11 : Registration extract of sale deed dated: 18.01.2016 executed by 1st respondent in favour of 4th respondent in respect of Item No.3 of petition schedule property. Ex.A12 : Office copy of legal notice dated: 15.02.2016 got issued by plaintiff to the respondents. Ex.A13 : Bunch of postal receipts 5 in number. Ex.A14 : Postal acknowledgment card showing that 2nd respondent received the notice under Ex.A12. Ex.A15 : Returned cover from 1st respondent. Ex.A16 : Returned cover from 3rd respondent. Ex.A17 : Certified copy of cheque return memo issued by HDFC Bank. Ex.A18 : Certified copy of the decree dated: 01.12.2016 in OS.30/2016 on the file of II Addl. District Judge’s Court, Guntur by the plaintiff against the 1st respondent. Ex.A19 : Certified copy of the judgment dated: 01.12.2016 in OS.30/2016 on the file of II Addl. District Judge’s Court, Guntur by the plaintiff against the 1st respondent.

For Respondents:

- Nil -

Sd/- G.Chakrapani

XII Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

Copy to: The Official Receiver Court, Guntur.

IN THE COURT XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

GUNTUR.

Present: Sri. G.Chakrapani XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 6 th (Sixth) day of March, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No.333 of 2026

(Cr. No.136 of 2020 of Pedakurapadu PS)

Between: Karasala Anil Kumar @ Anil Chowdary, S/o.Venkata Rao, Aged about 41 years, R/o.D.No.1-53, Kantepudi, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. --- Petitioner/Accused No.2

- AND -

The State: SHO, Pedakurapadu PS, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Guntur.--- Complainant

This petition is coming on 02.03.2025 for hearing before me and upon perusing the petition and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri. G.Siva Prasad Reddy, Sri Habibulla Shaik, Sri V.Raju, Ms. T.Bhargavi, Advocates for the Petitioner/Accused No.2 and this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS) (equivalent to Section 438

Cr.P.C.,), seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 in

Cr.No.136/2020 of Pedakurapadu PS, registered under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

2.In this case, the accused No.1 was arrested and was released on bail by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Sattenapalli, by his orders dated 13.10.2020 in

Crl.M.P.No.1074/2020. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the

accused No.3 was granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petitioner/A2 may also be granted anticipatory bail in the above case.

3.The substance of the allegations against the accused indicate that during the raids conducted by the Vigilance and Enforcement

Officials conducted at the premises of Sri Lakshmi Sai Balaji Traders of

Thulluru Village, they found the stocks of APDAP 28 bags, IFFCO UREA 270 bags, Kissan UREA etc., in excess of the permitted stock and that they came to know that they are selling the same for higher prices to the farmers and that on further enquiry, they came to know that the accused

No.1 is the in-charge of the said premises and that as per his confession, he purchased those bags for higher prices from the accused No.2 who was Godown in-charge of Guntur District Co-operative Marketing Society

Ltd., Pedakurapadu through some farmers and that the accused No.3 is the wife of the accused No.1 and that the said shop Sri Lakshmi Sai Balaji

Traders is being run in her name and therefore, on a report given by the

Mandal Agriculture Officer, on 27.09.2020, the above crime 136/2020 of

Pedakurapadu PS was registered.

4.The petitioner/Accused No.2 would contend that he has not committed any offence and that he appeared several times before the concerned PS and cooperated with the investigation and that he undertakes that he would cooperate with the investigation in future also and that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years and hence, the police are supposed to serve notice under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and however, due to political reasons, they are now contemplating to arrest him and that he has got wife, children and aged parents who are dependant upon him and that he has a clean record of life and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 would argue that the allegation that the Accused No.2 colluded with the Accused No.1 and supplied material to him is false, because there is no such possibility and that everything is made online and that the accused No.2 could sell the stock only to the authorized farmers by issuing proper challans and therefore, the question of his conniving with the accused No.1 for unlawful gain does not arise.

6.Heard. Perused the record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner/accused No.2 is entitled for grant of an anticipatory bail, as prayed for?

8.POINT:

A perusal of the record, particularly, the CD dated:28.09.2020 and 30.10.2020 clearly reveal that the accused No.1 is working as In- charge of GDCMS, Pedakakani Godown and that some farmers purchased UREA and DAP bags from him and that later, they sold them for higher prices to the accused No.1 and that later, the accused No.1 was selling them for more prices to the needy farmers. But ingeniously, it is mentioned that through some farmers, the accused No.2 sold the said bags to the accused No.1. But no cogent proof is placed to show that the accused No.1 sold the said bags through the said farmers by collecting higher prices and that the said farmers resold the said bags to the accused No.1 for more prices and that later, the accused No.1 sold such bags to the other farmers for even more prices. As long as the accused

No.2 sold such bags to farmers under proper challans for the prices fixed, it is not appropriate to call the accused No.2 as an offender. When the said farmers are entitled to purchase such bags for the prices fixed by the

Government and when the accused No.2 sold the same to those farmers as per the procedure, by simply making the allegation that by selling such bags to those farmers, the accused No.2 connived with the accused No.1 for wrongful, the person like the accused No.2 cannot be implicated. The allegations made against the accused No.2 is not appealing and I consider, under the above circumstances, it is appropriate to grant protection to the petitioner/accused No.2 from being arrested. Moreover, the offence was registered in the year 2020 and no explanation is given by the prosecution or investigating agency why the petitioner/accused

No.2 was not arrested so far. It seems, no further relevant details are procured by the investigating agency during the relevant time, I consider, the evidence on record is not sufficient to incarcerate to the petitioner/accused No.2 in the above crime and therefore, it is appropriate to grant him anticipatory bail, however, on some conditions. Thus, I answer the above point.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed, granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner/accused No.2, with a direction for his release by the SHO, Pedakurapadu PS, in the event of the arrest of the petitioner/accused No.2, on his executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like-sum each in the above Cr.No.136/2020 of Pedakurapadu PS. After his release, the petitioner/accused No.2 shall attend before the SHO, Pedakurapadu PS, between 9 A.M., to 11 A.M., on every 1st Saturday of every month for a period of three months.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- G.Chakrapani

XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

1) The II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

2) The SHO, Pedakurapadu PS.

3) The Addl. Public Prosecutor, XII Addl. District Court, Guntur.

4) Sri. G.Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/A2.

IN THE COURT XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

GUNTUR.

Present: Sri. G.Chakrapani XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Monday, this the 4 th (Fourth) day of August, 2025.

Crl.M.P.No.1245 of 2025

(Cr. No.74 of 2025 of Medikonduru PS)

Between: Bellamkonda Tirupal, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 50 years,

Tripuranthakam, Prakasam.... Petitioner/A5

- AND -

The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Medikonduru PS,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Guntur.... Complainant

This petition is coming on 01.08.2025 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the petition and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri I.Madhu Babu, Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner/A5 and this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This application is filed by the petitioner/A5 under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’), for his release in Cr.No.74/2025 of Medikonduru PS under Section 103(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) by way of granting bail to him.

2.The petitioner/A5 was arrested on 05.05.2025 and he was remanded to judicial custody on 06.05.2025 by the learned V Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

3.As per the case of the prosecution, an unknown dead body was found on the northern side of the railway track in the barren fields belonging to one Gaddam Rambabu in Perecherla Village and that the

VRO-G.Venkatesh Babu gave a report to that effect to the Medikonduru

Police basing on which, the above crime was registered and investigated into and that the scene of offence was examined, whereat broken glass bottles were found near the dead body of the deceased and that the police also came to know and examined the same and that efforts were made for the identification of the dead body and that later one J.Rambabu came to the police station and informed that he has seen 5 persons consuming liquor in the evening on 27.04.2025 in the scene of offence and that they quarreled with the deceased stating that because of him they are facing problem in the Court adjournments as he has not been attending the Court properly and that he has been blackmailing them for money and so saying, they beat him on his head initially with glass bottles and later with a boulder and killed him and later, they went on their bikes and that it was videographed by another person and that they also got frightened and left that place. The person who videographed the incident to some extent is also examined. According to him, his mobile records were collected by the police.

4.The case of the accused is of total denial and it is contended that he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he was falsely implicated in this case and that he is a respectable citizen and that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and that he is having a fixed above and as such, there is no chance of his absconding and that material part of the investigation is already over in as much as 11 witnesses are examined and that he has sufficient solvent sureties to assure his appearance and that he shall not tamper the evidence or the witnesses and hence, he may be released on bail.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner/A5 is entitled to be released on bail as prayed for?

7.POINT :

Perused the record. The very case of the prosecution indicates that this is a case of accidental drowning rather than a criminal intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. In such circumstances, it is not appropriate to keep the accused in detention any longer who is already in detention for a period of more than 85 days.

8.The CD discloses that the charge sheet was filed in this case on 21.07.2025. However, the prosecution would oppose this application on the ground that there is a possibility of the accused threatening the witnesses, if he is released on bail. I consider, as the charge sheet was already filed and the remaining accused A1 to A4 were already released on bail, the petitioner/A5 has to be released on bail. Therefore, the petitioner/A5 has to be ordered to be released on bail. Thus, I answer the above point.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed, directing release of the petitioner/A5 on bail, on his executing a personal bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two sureties each for the like-sum each in the above Cr.No.74/2025 of Medikonduru PS to the satisfaction of the V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 4th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- G.Chakrapani

XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

1) The V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

2) The SHO, Medikonduru PS.

3) The Addl. Public Prosecutor, XII Addl. District Court, Guntur.

4) Sri. I.Madhu Babu, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for petitioner/A5.

IN THE COURT XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

GUNTUR.

Present: Sri. G.Chakrapani XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Monday, this the 4 th (Fourth) day of August, 2025.

Crl.M.P.No.1177 of 2025

(Cr. No.61 of 2025 of Pedakurapadu PS)

Between: Gudeti Thammi Joseph @ Joseph Thambi @ Thambi, S/o. Kornelu, Aged 39 years, R/o. Thammavaram Village,

Pedakurapadu Mandal, Palnadu District.... Petitioner/Accused

- AND -

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakurapadu PS, Palnadu District,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Guntur.... Complainant

This petition is coming on 31.07.2025 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the petition and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri. Y.Kishore Kumar, Smt. Ch.Srilakshmi, Advocates for the Petitioner/Accused and this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This application is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’), for grant of bail to the petitioner/accused who was arrested in Cr.No.61/2025 of Pedakurapadu

PS for the offence under Section 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’).

2.The petitioner/accused was arrested on 16.05.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody on 17.05.2025 by the learned II Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

3.The case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is thus:

On 15.05.2025 at about 7.30 P.M., while the defacto- complainant Rebbavarapu Dileep Kumar along with some fellow villagers was discussing about the work arrangements to be made on the next day’s rod bending works, by sitting on a cement bench near the RCM

Church of Thammavaram Village of Pedakurapadu Mandal, the accused came there and picked-up a quarrel with him stating that, he fought with his younger brother last month regarding a mobile phone issue and that since then, he has been waiting for a chance to kill him and that finally, he got opportunity on that day and so saying, he picked-up a knife from lungi and stabbed on the right side of the chest, due to which, he received a deep bleeding injury and that immediately the other villagers present there intervened and rescued the defacto-complainant and was taken to the hospital.

4.The case of the accused is of total denial and he contends that he did not commit any such offence and that this case is foisted against him and that the ingredients of Section 109(1) BNS do not apply to the facts of this case and that the intention to kill is not mentioned in the FIR and that the material part of the investigation is completed and that the petitioner/accused is a law abiding citizen having fixed abode at

Thammavaram Village and that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and hence, he may be released on bail.

5.Heard. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to be released on bail as prayed for?

7.POINT :

For the past 75 days, the petitioner/accused has been in detention and judicial custody. This is the third bail application filed by the petitioner/accused and the earlier bail applications in

Crl.M.P.Nos.835/2025 and 962/2025 were dismissed on 04.06.2025 and 20.06.2025 respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would contend that the material part of the investigation is completed in this case and the petitioner/accused has been in detention for the last 60 days and hence, the petitioner/accused may be released on bail. The prosecution would contend that charge sheet was filed in this case on 08.07.2025 and awaiting for the sessions case number. The prosecution would oppose this application mainly on the ground that the petitioner/accused if releases on bail, there is a chance of occurring law and order problem. If really there arose a problem as alleged by the prosecution, it may lead to the detention of the petitioner/accused permanently in the prison till completion of trial as per law and it would lead to cancellation of the bail order. Therefore, on the said ground, the order of granting bail to the petitioner/accused need not be shelved.

Further, charge sheet is also filed in this case. Therefore, I consider, it is appropriate to order release of the petitioner/accused on bail. Thus, I answer the above point.

8.In the result, this petition is allowed, directing release of the petitioners/Accused, on bail, on his executing a personal bond for

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two sureties each for the like-sum each in the above Cr.No.61/2025 of Pedakurapadu PS to the satisfaction of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 4th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- G.Chakrapani

XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

1) The II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

2) The SHO, Pedakurapadu PS.

3) The Addl. Public Prosecutor, XII Addl. District Court, Guntur.

4) Sri. Y.Kishore Kumar, Advocate for petitioner/accused.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GUNTUR

Present:Sri G. Chakrapani

Judge,Family Court-cum-XII Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025

O.S.No.411/2018

Between: Nanduri Dhana Lakshmi…Plaintiff

And

1.Chinta Narayanamma 2.Chenna Reddy Lakshmi Kanthamma 3.Chinta Ravindra Reddy 4.Chinta Raghurami Reddy 5.Chinta Gopal Reddy 6.Chinta Seeta Rami Reeddy. … Defendants

This suit is filed for partition of the item nos.1 to 4 of plaint schedule property shall be divided into 16 equal shares and allot one such share to the each plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and 4 such shares to defendants 4 to 6; the item no.5 shall be divided into 4 equal share and allot one sch share to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 only, by metes and bounds, good and bad quality and put them in separate possession therefore, and for mesne profits arrived from the properties from the date of death of Chinta Yella Reddy i.e., 19-09-2004 till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming before me on this day for hearing in I.A.448/2019 in the presence

Sri Y.Hari Hara Rayalu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, Advocate for defendant no.3; Srmt E.Umadevi, Advocate for Defendants no.4 and 5 and Defendant no.1, 2 and 6 are set exparte and and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

Plaintiff filed a memo not pressing this case, as settled out of Court.

Defendants side called present. Hence, this suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this 31st day of July, 2025.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.