Sri G.Deena Babu

Page 1 Of 6

APKD000025172026

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST

(POA) ACT CASES- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND SESSIONS ::

KADAPA.

Present:- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. FAC.IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P.176 Of 2026.

in Crime No.07 Of 2026 of Pulivendula U/G P.S.

1.Manne Saritha, wife of M.Kumar Babu,aged 44 yrs, H.No.26-505-A.1, Vijayapuri colony, Near LIC office, R.S.Road, Nandyal.(A.2).

2.Pochimireddy Dasaratha Ramireddy,S/o P.Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 48 yrs,Flat No.G.2, Maruthi residency, near Gayathri Gardens, Balaji Hills colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad.(A.3)

3.Pochimireddy Sarala, W/o Pochimireddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy, aged 48 yrs, Flat No.G.2, Maruthi residency, near Gayathri Gardens, Balaji Hills colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad. (A.4).

4.Pochimireddy Ramanjaneya Reddy, S/o Late Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 52 yrs, resident of Bonala village, Lingala mandal, Pulivendula mandal, Kadapa district. (A.5)

5.Yammanuru Prakash Reddy, S/o Venkataramana Reddy, aged 39 yrs, resident of Bonala village, Lingala mandal, Pulivendula, Kadapa district. (A.6) 6.Gajjala Siva Kumar Reddy, S/o G.Prabhakar Reddy, aged 54 yrs, Flat No.G.2, Maruthi residency, near Gayathri Gardens, Balaji Hills colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad. (A.7)

7.Damerakula Vijaya Rekha, W/o Sundaraiah, aged 42 yrs, H.No.26-505-A.1, Vijayapuri colony, near LIC Office, R.S road, Nandyal (A.8).

8.Manne Gnana Bharanamu, S/o Yakobu, aged about 70 yrs, D.No.4-93, A.Kodur village, Bandi Atmakur mandal, Nandyal district. (A.9).

.. Petitioners/A.2 to A.9 ..

-Versus-

State: Represented by the Station House Office, Pulivendula U/G P.S.

.. Respondent/Complainant ..

Page 2 Of 6

This petition is coming on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Prathap Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners / A.2 to

A.9 and Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent / Complainant and upon perusing the material papers available on record and after hearing both sides, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the Petitioners / A.2 to

A.9 Under Sec.482 Of BNSS-2023, prays to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.07/2026 of Pulivendula U/G Police Station for the alleged offences Under Section.316 (5), 140 (1), 127 (8), 308 (6), 318 (4) r/w 3 (5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that this is a case of ‘Cheating criminal breach of trust extraction kidnapping, wrongful confinement with common intention’, occurred on 06.01.2026 at Mythri layout, Pulivendula town alleging that the complainant Akkulagari Maruthireddy and his partner

M.Harshavardhana reddy, opened construction in the name of west land EPC company jointly, due to inconvenience the complainant gave G.P to A.1 for entire money transactions of the above construction company that he used to above G.P and withdraw the money which was deposited by the government for clear the construction contractor works bills in APGB bank Nandyal branch from 2021 to 2024 for an amount of Rs.2 crores 30 lakhs, A.1 cheated the company failed to use E.P.C company expenditures and A.1 involved in

Criminal breach of trust and the above amount sent to A.2 to A.4 and A.6 to

A.9 regularly. Later A.1 to A.9 have also forcefully taken the Duster car belongs to complainant, TATA Xenon pick, motor cycles, Laptops and printers along with office furniture, Centering materials, plumbing materials more than 10 lakhs, bar bending and wood cutting machinery. Later the complainant lodged written report, based on which a case in Crime No.07/2026 for the above said offences.

Page 3 Of 6

3. The brief grounds sought for grant of bail are that petitioners / A.2 to A.9 are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the accused vide C.No.7601/C-23/CID/2025 dt.25.09.2025 to DGP, A.P.Managalagiri and have conducted a detailed preliminary enquiry, recorded the statement of both parties, hotel staff at

Austin rain tree, hotel Patan cheruvu and concerned police officers, the CID conclusively held that the entire issue is purely civil and financial dispute over sharing of contract amounts, the GPA was voluntarily executed by the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant misusing criminal process to settle civil financial disputes. The defacto complainant lodged this present false and malafide FIR in the year January, 2026 with sweeping, vague and omnibus allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, kidnapping and wrongful confinement against the petitioners without attributing any specific overt acts to them. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint against Nandyal police stating that they apprehension of his friend Harshavardhan by Nandyal police and complaint withdrawn stating that a resolution has reached in thismatter through a compromise between the concerned police. The petitioner No.8 is aged about 70 years suffering from old aged problems. The petitioners are no way concerned about the transactions and other allegations. There is no specific date and time on which date they were attacked the defacto complainant and his friend. The petitioners are law abiding citizen, having permanent residence and having old aged parents, small children and there is no possibility of absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. The petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents. So, requested the court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners / A.2 to A.9.

4. Notice given to the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application on the ground that investigation is pending.

Page 4 Of 6

5. Heard on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is that:- “Whether the Petitioners / A.2 to A.9 are entitled to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for”?

POINT:-

7.On perusal of material available on record including the C.D file submitted by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is found that this is a case of ‘Cheating criminal breach of trust extraction kidnapping, wrongful confinement with common intention’, occurred on 06.01.2026 at Mythri layout,

Pulivendula town.

8. The First Information Report (FIR) explicitly stated that the petitioners / A.2 to A.9 were involved in the present crime and reveals prima-facie case against the petitioners / A.2 to A.9 as alleged by the investigating officer. The investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and for collecting documentary evidence. Regarding the prosecution’s case, the investigation remains incomplete. The anticipatory bail for the petitioners / A.2 to A.9 may adversely impact the ongoing investigation. There is every possibility of threats to the witnesses and a prima-facie case involving the petitioners in a severe case exists, the nature of the accusations is grave. The investigation agency has not been able to interrogate the petitioners, custodial investigate is deemed necessary to extract all material information about the offence, thus the established legal principle is that anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of rule, it should only be granted when the Court is

Page 5 Of 6 convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy.

9. In view of the principles laid down in ‘Siddaram Satlingappa Mhetre Vs

State of Maharastra (2011)1 SCC 694 ’ to grant Anticipatory bail, the factors and parameters have to be taken into consideration that ‘T he Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully and the role of accused ’.

10.On perusal of the record shows that there is prima-facie case against the petitioners / A.2 to A.9. Further the prosecution alleges that the investigation is pending for apprehension of petitioners since long time. If the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail there would be harm to the witnesses in the case and may tamper the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

In view of allegations on the petitioners / A.2 to A.9, I do not find any merits in the petition to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners / A.2 to A.9, as such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this point is answered.

11. In the result, this anticipatory bail petition isdismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik,

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.FAC.IV Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Page 6 Of 6

Page 1 Of 5

APKD000025712026

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST (POA)

ACT CASES- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND SESSIONS :: KADAPA.

Present:-Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. FAC.IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 21st day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P.942 Of 2026

in Crime No.15 Of 2026 of Kadapa I town U/G P.S. Peta Sreekanth, aged 34 yrs, son of P.Govindu, Boya (Valmiki) by caste, Real estate construction, resident of D.No.2/150-3-1, Maruthi nagar, Kadapa city.

.. Petitioner / Accused No.4 ..

-Versus-

State : Represented by the Station House Officer, I town U/G P.S., Kadapa.

.. Respondent/Complainant ..

This petition is coming on 15.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Reddaiah, Advocate for the Petitioner / Accused No.4 and

Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent / Complainant and upon perusing the material papers available on record and after hearing both sides, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

This is first bail application filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.4 Under

Sec.483 of BNSS-2023, seeking regular bail for the alleged offences Under sections.191 (3) 333, 324 (5), 310 (2), 49, 351 (2) (3) r/w 190 BNS and Sec.3 (1)

(r) (s) (g), Sec.3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 in Crime

No.15/2026 of I town Police station.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is thatthis is a case of ‘Aggravated rioting armed with deadly weapons, house-trespass after preparation for

Page 2 Of 5 hurt/ assault/wrongful restraint/ putting in fear thereof, dacoity (committed by five or more persons conjointly, by putting in fear of death), abetment, aggravated criminal

intimidation, mischief causing damage exceeding rupees one Lakh, coupled with

atrocities on Scheduled Caste persons" occurred on 26.01.2026 between 11:30 PM to 12:00 AM at D.No.1/1697 (near PF Office), RS Road, Yerramukkapalli,

Kadapa City and reported on 27.01.2026 at 9:30 PM in the PS, wherein the complainant namely Satti Bhaskar, aged 53 years S/o Late Satti Narasimhulu,

Caste SC Mala, Occ: Private Contractor, R/o D.No.1/1697, RS Road, near PF

Office, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa City stated that about 13 years ago, he and his family borrowed Rs.20 lakhs by mortgaging 09 cents of land to Mudda Venkata

Subba Reddy of Tirupati, through a registered document. Despite repaying Rs.98 lakhs, no receipts/re-registration was provided. The lender later demanded Rs.2 crores for re-registration, which was refused by the complainant. The lender further claimed to have sold the land to relatives of Kadapa MLA, including

Dwarakanatha Reddy, Siddavatam Lakshmi Reddy, Mallem Shyam Sundar

Reddy, and others. Despite intervention by the MLA's husband Srinivasulu

Reddy for panchayat settlement over the last three months, no resolution occurred. While the matter stood, on the intervening night of 26.01.2026, the accused persons A.2 to A.7 (including A8 to A12) and some others acting in furtherance of their common object/ intention, formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons (sticks and iron rods), forcibly trespassed into the residential premises of the complainant during night hours, threatened the complainant and his family members with death abused them with caste name as ‘ Mala Na కొడకల్లా� రా, మాల ల�జముం�డల్లా� రా", forcibly snatched and broke the complainant's mobile phone (value approx Rs.10,000/-), snatched gold chain from his wife's neck (weight approx one tola, value approx. Rs.1,00,000/-) by putting them in fear of death, damaged household articles (TV, fridge, AC, chairs, beds, etc., value approx. Rs.2,00,000/- and scooter (value approx Rs.30,000/- and demolished the dwelling house value approx. Rs.4,00,000/- and adjacent portions using JCB machine within 10-15 minutes on instructions from main

Page 3 Of 5 accused, thereby causing total mischief and property damage, extreme fear, then the present case has been registered against the petitioner and others.

During the course of investigation the police arrested the accused on 02.05.2026, since then he has been in judicial custody.

3. The brief grounds sought for grant of bail are that the petitioner / A.4 is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. The civil litigation between the parties was already decreed and appeal dismissed.

The present criminal case appears to be offshoot of civil dispute and is given criminal colour to exert pressure. FIR contains vague, omnibus and exaggerated allegations without attributing any specific overt act to the petitioner. His name do not find place in original complaint and he was subsequently roped in during investigation. The petitioner / A.4 moved anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Crl.M.P.983/2026 and was dismissed with an observation in view of criminal antecedents of petitioner. The newly added sections under BNS and SC/ST Act, do not satisfy the basic statutory ingredients and no prima-facie material exists to attract SC/ST Act. L.Ws.1 to 6 are already examined, rough sketch prepared and substantial investigation is completed. The petitioner has been unnecessarily arrayed due to political influence and pressure. The petitioner is sole bread winner of his family and he will not evade the due process of law and ready to furnish sureties for his release. Further the petitioner / accused

No.4 is ready and willing to furnish requisite surety for his appearance and requested the Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. Notice given to the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application, on the ground that the investigation is pending.

5.Heard on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is that:-

“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.4 is entitled to grant regular bail

as prayed for ?”.

Page 4 Of 5

POINT:-

7. On perusal of material available on record including the C.D file submitted by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is found that the petitioner / A.4 previously involved in the following crimes;

1. Crime No.302/2025 of I town Kadapa P.S.

2. Crime No.109/2019 of I town Kadapa P.S.

3. Crime No.58/2024 of I town Kadapa P.S

4. Crime No.80/2018 of Chinna Chowk U/G P.S.

5. Crime No.105/2021 of Chinna Chowk

6. Crime No.107/2017 of Chennur P.S.

7. Crime No.244/2017 of Chennur P.S.

8. Crime No.387/2025 of Kadapa Taluq P.S.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that A.4 is no way concerned with the offence and basing on the confessional statement made by A.4 about the involvement of A.4 decided by the concerned S.H.O and arrested him on 02.05.2026.

9. Further he argued that the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in

Crl.M.P.981/2026 to grant bail to A.1. The prime accused itself was released

on bail therefore by keeping A.4 in jail the purpose will not be served and the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Habeas Corpus Writ Petition

No.137/2026 in between Manoj Kumar Thru. His son Mudi Kumar and State of U.P

Thru. Prin.Secy Home Dept, U.P., Lko, and 4 others.

‘’The second issue which requires consideration is when grounds of

Page 5 Of 5

arrest are not furnished either prior to arrest or immediately after the

arrest, would it vitiate the arrest for non compliance of the provisions of

Section.50 Cr.P.C (now Section.47 of BNSS 2023) irrespective of certain

exigencies where furnishing such grounds would not be possible

forthwith’’.

10. On perusal of C.D the investigating officer on 02.05.2026 at 5.00 p.m at Kadapa I town U/G P.S, served the notices and obtained the signatures of the petitioner / A.4 and explained the reasons for his arrest. Therefore, the facts of the above decisions of the Hon’ble

Courts are not applicable to the present case facts, thereby this Court is not placed reliance on the above decisions. Hence, in view of the circumstances of the case, this Court not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner / A.4. Accordingly, this point is answered.

11. In the result, this petition isdismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 21st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik,

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.FAC.IV Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAJAMPET.

PRESENT: - Sri G.Deena Babu, IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. FAC: III Additional District Judge, Rajampet.

Saturday, this the 04 th day of January, 2025.

D.O.P.No. 02/ 2024

Shaik Karimunnisa Begum … Petitioner V/s.

Anandala Subramanyam

… Respondent

This Divorce petition is coming on 03-01-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.D.Rambabu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the respondent being called absent, set exparte, having stood over for consideration till today, after perused the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

The petitioner filed Divorce Original Petition U/s.27(1) (B) and (D) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for grant of a decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the respondent/husband Dt.12-11-2007.

2. Brief averments of the facts to file this Original Petition:-

The petitioner belongs to Muslim community and the respondent is

Hindu, their love and intercaste marriage was solemnized on 12.11.2007 as per Hindu rites and customs and their marriage was registered with the Registrar of marriages, Chitvel as per the Special

Marriage Act on 10.09.2015. After their marriage they both lived together for some days, by that time they had been working in KCP projects, later they came to Chitvel. During their wedlock, in the year 2010 they were blessed with one male child namely Rithwik @

Sameer. During her marital life, she was suffered in the hands of respondent as he addicted to bad vices and harassed the petitioner without any reason and demanded for dowry. She tried her level best to change the attitude of respondent but in vain. The respondent never shared his love and affection either towards her or their child

2

and neglected their welfare leaving to their fate having a concubine in the village and used to live with her for more than seven years.

Several mediations were held through the elders for their reunion but they became futile.

2(a). The respondent is not providing anything either to the petitioner or to their kid for their day to day needs and totally deserted them from the year 2016 . Unable to maintain herself here, in the year 2017 she went to Quattar to do a private job but her desire became mirage and she returned to India . The petitioner got issued legal notice Dt.03.6.2017 and 19.8.2021 to the respondent calling upon him for mutual divorce but there was no response from the respondent even after receipt of notices. The petitioner waited all these days with a pond hope expecting the chage in the attitude of respondent but no use. At present the petitioner is residing along with her mother at Venkatagiri keeping their kid with her and there are no chances for their reunion. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent received notice, failed to appear before the Court on the date of first hearing as such he was made set exparte.

4.On behalf of the petitoner, she herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

6. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether there are any valid grounds to grant decree of divorce to the petitioner as prayed for ?

POINT:-

7.The petitioner/wife to substantiate her version, herself examined as

P.W.1 in chief examination by way of affidavit. She deposed that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 12-11-2007 as per Hindu rites and customs in Sivalayam temple at Kondapalle village. They lived

3

happily for some days and they begot with one male child in the year 2010.

The respondent addicted to bad vices and harassed her demanding for dowry having a concubine in his village and neglected their welfare leaving them to their fate for more than seven years. She made efforts for their reunion through elders and by sending legal notices to respondent but in vain and at present she along with her kind were living at her parents house in Venkatagir and there are no chances for their reunion. Apart from that marked Exs.P1 to P.7. The Marriage certificate Dt.10.9.2015 issued by Sub-

Registrar, Chitvel/Ex.P.1, The marriage photo of petitioner and respondent/Ex.P.2, Office copies of legalnotices Dt.03.6.2017 and 18.8.2021/Exs.P.3 and P5 would go to show that the marriage was performed between the parties on 12-11-2017 in Sivalayam temple of

Kondapalle village in Vijayawada.

8.In view of the discussion oforal as well as documentary evidence adduced by petitioner/wife as P.W.1 would clearly go to show the relationship between the petitioner and respondent is as wife and husband whose marriage was performed on 12-11-2007 in Sivalayam temple, Kondapalle,

Vijayawada. They lived happily for some days and were blessed with one male child during their wedlock. Respondent left the company of P.W.1 from the year 2016 and he refused to join with the petitioner even after several mediators were held by her for their reunion and He neglected to look after the welfare of his wife and children and deserted the petitioner for more than two years, would go show that the respondent harassed the petitioner in leading the marital life, as such, the behaviour of respondent against the petitioner in leading the marital life cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious to her to live with the respondent and there is no chance for their reunion in future. The non-appearance of respondent before the Court after receuipt of notice would also go to show

4

that he has no objection to grant decree of divorce to the petitioner and if at all the respondent had any intention to join the petitioner to lead married life, definitely he might have appeared before Court and contested this O.P, since the non-inclination of respondent to contest this case, this Court has no hesitation to say that the petitioner is very much entitled to a decree of divorce. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.In the result, this Divorce Original Petition is allowed and thereby a decree of divorce is granted to the petitioner/wife by dissolving her marriage with the respondent/husband dt.12-11-2007 on the ground of cruelty and desertion but in the circumstances no costs awarded.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 04 th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- G.Deena Babu,

Iv Additional District Judge, Kadapa FAC: III Additional District Judge,

Rajampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner :- Respondent : exparte

P.W.1 : Shaik Kareemunnisa Begum.

Exhibits for the Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Marriage certificate Dt.10.09.2015 issued by the Sub- Registrar, Chitvel.

Ex.P2: Marraige photo certificate issued by the Gazetted officer

Ex.P3:Office copy of legal notice Dt.03.6.2017 along with postal receipt.

Ex.P4: Acknowledgment

Ex.P5: Office copy of legal notice Dt.03.6.2017 along with postal receipt

Ex.P6: Acknowledgment

Ex.P7: Self attested copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner.

Exhibits for respondent : Nil

Sd/- G.D.B

IV A.D.J, KDP.

FAC: III A.D.J, RJPT.

5

.W.2 also reiterated the same facts as narrated by PW.1 in his chief affidavit examination with regard to the marriage of P.W.1 with the respondent and her harassment agaisnt P.W.1.

Page 1 Of 4

APKD000024692026

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST (POA)

ACT CASES- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND SESSIONS :: KADAPA.

Present:- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. FAC.IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

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

Crl.M.P.165 Of 2026

in Crime No.43 Of 2026 of Kadapa I Town U/G P.S. Mogal Dawood Baig, S/o Late Masthan Baig, aged 30 yrs, Muslim, Fruit business, resident of Kanaka Mahalakshmi school lane, BKM street, Kadapa city

and district. Adhaar No.7942 5828 9277. .. Petitioner / Accused ..

-Versus-

State: Represented by the Station House Office, Kadapa I town U/G P.S.

.. Respondent/Complainant ..

This petition is coming on 11.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Prathap Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner /

Accused and Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent /

Complainant and upon perusing the material papers available on record and after hearing both sides, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

This is second bail application filed by the Petitioner / Accused Under

Sec.483 of BNSS-2023, seeking regular bail for the alleged offences Under sections.109, 118 (1) BNS, in Crime No.43/2026 of Kadapa I town U/G Police station. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that this is a case of ‘ Attempt

Page 2 Of 4

to commit culpable homicide (attempt to murder) coupled with voluntarily

causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons’ alleging that on 25.03.2026 at 7.40 pm at the first floor of Balaji Wines, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa City and reported in the P.S. on 26.03.2026 at 1.00 a.m, wherein the complainant

Tippiripati Bhaskar, preferred a complaint stating that on 25.03.2026 at about 7.40 p.m while he was consuming liquor along with his friends Gorla Ravi and

Kandukuru Saleem Basha at the first floor of Balaji Wines, Yerramukkapalli,

Kadapa, the accused, having prior ill feelings and disputes with him regarding a money matter involving L.W.3 Saleem Basha, came there, when the complainant questioned the accused about his highhanded behavior, the accused with an intention to murder him, stabbed him with a knife below the right side ribs, when his friend Gorla Ravi intervened, the accused also stabbed him twice with the same knife on the left side shoulder, causing bleeding injuries and both injured persons were shifted to RIMS Hospital,

Kadapa and were admitted in the Surgical ICU (SICU) ward for treatment. On the complaint a case in Crime No.43/2026 of I town P.S., Kadapa. Hence the complaint.

During the course of investigation the police arrested the accused on 28.03.2026, since then he has been in judicial custody.

3. The brief grounds sought for grant of bail are that the petitioner / accused is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case. The complaint is exaggerated and motivated. The alleged confession panchanama

Dt.28.03.2026 is fabricated and created for the purpose of this case. The incident occurred suddenly during a quarrel while consuming alcohol. There was no premeditation or intention to commit murder. The injuries sustained by the defacto complainant and the other injured are not on vital parts of the body in a manner sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. The injured persons are out of danger, which reduces the gravity of the offence. The petitioner is having small children's and old age parents and the petitioner is

Page 3 Of 4 the sole bread winner by running Juice Shop to his entire family. The investigation agency examined all material witnesses and entire investigation is completed and all material objects were seized, except filing charge sheet is pending. The alleged offence U/Sec.332 (a) is not grave in nature and does not involve any serious injury. The ingredients of the alleged section are not clearly made out. The remaining other sections lodged by the police are bailable in nature. There is an inordinate delay in lodging FIR, the FIR disclosed that the occurrence of offence on 19.02.2026, the complaint given by the defacto complainant on 22.02.2026. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is omnibus in nature and there are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. All the witnesses are interested and relatives and they were also examined by the police. The petitioner is sole bread winner of his family and he will not evade the due process of law and ready to furnish sureties for his release. Further the petitioner / accused is ready and willing to furnish requisite surety for his appearance and requested the Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. Notice given to the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application, on the ground that the investigation is pending.

5.Heard on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is that:-

“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused is entitled to grant regular bail as

prayed for ?”.

POINT:-

7. On perusal of material available on record including the C.D file submitted by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is found that the petitioner / accused wantedly with an intention to kill the defacto complainant stabbed with a curved knife on the right side below the ribs the vital part of the

Page 4 Of 4 body. Meanwhile the L.W.2 Gorla Ravi, L.W.3 Saleem Basha, intervened and rescued the injured from the clutches of accused and some of the eyewitnesses did not come forward to give evidence and further the investigating officer prays that if the petitioner / accused released on bail, he will obstruct further investigation to the investigating officer. Even till date the defacto complainant, who is injured is not discharged from the RIMS hospital,

Kadapa. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner / accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8. In the result, this petition isdismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik,

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.FAC.IV Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Page 1 Of 4

APKD000025622026

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST (POA)

ACT CASES- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND SESSIONS :: KADAPA.

Present:- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. FAC.IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

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

Crl.M.P.185 Of 2026

in Crime No.80 Of 2026 of C.K.Dinne U/G P.S. Syed Dastagiri, S/o Khader Basha, aged 22 yrs, caste : Muslim, resident of

Maddimadugu village, C.K.Dinne mandal, YSR Kadapa district.

.. Petitioner / Accused No.1 ..

-Versus-

State: Represented by the Station House Office, C.K.Dinne U/G P.S.

.. Respondent/Complainant ..

This petition is coming on 11.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt Duggasani Haritha, Advocate for the Petitioner / Accused

No.1 and Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent / Complainant and upon perusing the material papers available on record and after hearing both sides, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

This is first bail application filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.1 Under

Sec.483 of BNSS-2023, seeking regular bail for the offences Under sections.109 (1) 115 (2), 118 (1) r/w sec.3 (5) of BNS, in Crime No.80/2026 of

C.K.Dinne U/G Police station.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the offence occurred on 18.04.2026 at about 2.30 p.m in the fields of Basha Well, Maddimadugu

Page 2 Of 4 village, around 2.30 p.m while the defacto complainant was swimming in the

Well, the A.1 and A.2 who came with an intention to murder the defacto complainant hurled stones upon the defacto complainant, due to which one stone hit on back side, as a result, the defacto complainant received swelling injury and A.1 started fisting on the face of the defacto complainant, due to which the defacto complainant received blunt injuries and A.2 stabbed him in the ribs with knife he had brought with him. Meanwhile his younger brother

Zahid, Niyamath and Imtiyaz intervened and rescued the defacto complainant, even then the accused were tried to cut private part and pushed them away and ran towards the road. Due to which blood was oozing from his torso. So on receipt of complainant on 18.04.2026 a case in Crime

No.80/2026 was registered for the offence Under sections.109 (1) 115 (2), 118 (1) r/w sec.3 (5) of BNS. During the course of investigation the police arrested the petitioner / accused No.1 on 20.04.2026, since then he has been in judicial custody.

3. The brief grounds sought for grant of bail are that the petitioner / accused No.1 are as follows:-

The petitioner / accused is innocent and falsely implicated in this case.

He never involved in the alleged offence. There was abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. The entire story was created and filed false complaint by the defacto complainant, based on that the investigating officer registered this false case against the petitioner / accused No.1. There is no possibility of tampering the evidence by the petitioner / A.1 and he is having permanent abode. Investigation is completed, all the witnesses were examined and nothing was left, except filing of the charge sheet. In the circumstances, the petitioner / A.1 prays to grant bail. Hence the petition.

4. Notice given to the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application, on the ground that investigation is pending.

5.Heard on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

Page 3 Of 4

6. Now the point for consideration is:-

“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.1 is entitled to grant regular bail

as prayed for ?”.

POINT:-

7. On perusal of material available on record including the C.D file submitted by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is found that the A.1 and A.2 are having intention to murder the defacto complainant, they hatcked a plan to kill him and that at the first instance they hurled stones and thereafter A.1 caught hold of him and A.2 stabbed him with knife on the ribs, due to which the injured received severe bleeding injuries and after receipt of the injuries he was shifted to RIMS hospital, Kadapa. Even till date the injured is not discharged. During the course of investigation the investigating officer examined only L.Ws.1 to 6 witnesses. Since A.1 and defacto complainant are residing in the same village, if the petitioner / A.1 is released, he will cause obstruction to the investigation and also he will cause threat to the witnesses as well as family members of the defacto complainant. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner / A.1.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

8. In the result, this petition isdismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik,

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.FAC.IV Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Page 4 Of 4