Sri K.Shyam Babu

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20261 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :: BAPATLA

Present: Sri K.SYAM BABU,

VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

Thursday, this the 29th day of January, 2026

A.S.No.47 of 2024

Between: Bolisetty Venkata Subbarao, s/o Late Koteswararao, aged about 74 years, Retired Andhra Bank Employee, R/o H.No.7-1-302/46/1&2, dolphin II Apartments, Opp. to BK Guda Park, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. … Appellant/Defendant

And

Bolisetty Ramesh Babu, s/o Koteswararao, aged about 65 years, Cultivation, R/o Returu village, Kakumanu mandal, Bapatla, Guntur District, now presently residing at Patel Nagar, 1st lane, Opp.Post Office, Bapatla. … Respondent/plaintiff

Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.168/2010 dt.3-1-2024 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court(FTC), Bapatla

Between : Bolisetty Ramesh Babu …Plaintiff

And

Bolisetty Venkata Subbarao...Defendant

This appeal is coming on 21-1-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Raghuvaran, Advocate for the Appellant/defendant; Sri N.Subbarao, Advocate for Respondent/plaintiff, and after hearing the arguments of both counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful defendant/Appellant filed this appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S.168/2010 dt.3-1-2024 on the file of Additional

Senior Civil Judge’s Court(FTC), Bapatla.

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20262 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

02.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.9,97,600/-(Rupees nine lakhs ninety seven thousands hundred only) being the principle and interest amount due under promissory note dated 07-10-2007 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff together with subsequent interest thereon.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

03.The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,80,000/- on 07.10.2007 and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date for the said amount at Returu Village, Kakumanu

Mandal, promising to repay the said amount together with interest 24% pa. yearly compoundable either to the plaintiff or his endorsee on demand The plaintiff further submits that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant failed to discharge the debt amount due under promissory note and postponing the matter on some pretext or other.

Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit. Hence the suit.

04.The defendant filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaint in total. The sum and substance of the written statement goes to show that, the defendant neither approached nor borrowed an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- from the plaintiff so also never executed any promissory note dt.7.10.2007 in favour of the plaintiff The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff is none other than his awn brother and there are some differences with regarding to the

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20263 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

joint family properties in between them. The further contention is that the defendant is a senior bank Manager by profession whereas the plaintiff who does not have any job bore grudge against the defendant and on that he used to fie a false civil and criminal cases against the defendant in order to cause a mental agony and further contended that the plaintiff with the help of this henchmen forget the signature of the defendant and created the said promissory note for an amount of Rs 5.60.000 dt.7.10.2007 and that for the purpose of wrongful gain, the plaintiff created a false sum against him. The further contention is that in fact the plaintiff has no such capacity to lend the alleged amount under the promissory note to the defendant. As the plaintiff came with a evil idea by creating the false suit, the defendant prays for the dismissal of the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

05.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, trial court framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid supported by consideration and the same in binding on the defendant

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for the suit amount ?

3. To what relief?

06.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and through him Ex.A1 was elicited. Plaintiff examined PW2 on his behalf. On behalf of defendant, DW2 was examined.

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20264 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

07.Grounds of Appeal:

The decree and judgment of the lower court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

The lower court judgment is based on figment of imagination without considering the documentary and oral evidence.

The respondent/plaintiff failed to get the witness of Ex.A1 and examine.

The lower court did not consider the evidence of DW.1 in respect of his employment though the Andhra Bank [Union Bank of India) officials got the certain documents of DW.1 who signed and wrote for sending the Ex.A1 to FSL for comparing the same with bank documents to get know the genuinity of Ex. A1.

The lower court itself came to a conclusion about the signature of the appellant even though there is established law and provisions prescribe the procedure for admitting, handwriting, signature etc.

It is further submitted that the lower court had sent the Ex.A1 to the hand writing expert with the admitted and disputed signatures of the appellant to ascertain the truth that Ex.A1 is the genuine one. In the judgment also the

Hon'ble court very clearly mentioned that the expert had opined that it is not

possible to compare the differently executed signatures has they lack common characters among them and therefore a conclusive opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signature cannot be established". This itself shows that the appellant/defendant had not executed the Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff i.e., PW.1. when the expert opined that the questioned signature cannot be

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20265 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

compared with different pattern signature, though the suit is 2010 matter the trial court might have given one more chance to send the questioned document Ex.A1 to the FSL for comparing the stress and strokes of the Ex. Al questioned signature with the bank documents. But the lower court itself came to conclusion and decreed the suit which is against the principles of law, justice, equity and good conscience.

It is further submitted that as the appellant contention as that PW.1 and

PW.2 as they are relatives colluded each other and created Ex.A1 and PW.2 is the scribe of Ex Al. The trial court might have sent the questioned document

Ex.A1, alleged signature of appellant, to compare the stress and strokes of the signature with the PW.2 writing of Ex.A1. But the trial court showing and considering the matter belongs to 2010 erroneously came to conclusion that the

Ex.A1 is very genuine and signed by the DW.1.

It is submitted that though the appellant and the respondent are own brothers having property disputes among family members is very common. The appellant though one side that the PW.1 did not file any civil suit against him in the year 2009 vide O.S.No.25/2009 and immediately in the second instance the

DW.1 had changed his version and added that he do not remember whether the

PW.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.25/2009 for declaration against him and the said suit is still pending" But there is nothing wrong in the depositions of the appellant regarding the civil suit and it is not at all related with the present case.

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20266 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

It is further submitted that the appellant deposed the respondent/plaintiff do not have that much of capacity to lend money of Rs.5,80,000/- The appellant after decree courts app got know that the respondent/plaintiff filed an and judgment through his council by verifying the e insolvency petition on the next day of date of

Ex. Al ie..

On 08.10.2007 vide I.P.No.13/2007 before the Hon'ble I Prl. Senior Civil

Judge Bapatla the same was dismissed with costs on 20.01.2022. The e-courts

case status of 1.P.No.13/2007 is filed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon'ble court.

It is further submitted that the lower court have to dismiss the suit but on their own conclusion and on the basis of PW.1 decreed the suit it is against the principles of law.

It is further submitted that any other grounds specifically mentioned here will be submitted at the time of hearing.

08.By considering the submissions made by both sides, the following points are framed for determination.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid supported by consideration and the same in binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim ?

3. Whether the judgment of trial court requires any interference ?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

09.The parties herein after will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial court for convenience reference.

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20267 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

10.Prior to evaluating the evidence of both parties, it is appropriate to note that in a suit based on promissory note, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant executed suit promissory note and received consideration thereunder. If the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note, the presumption u/s.118 of N.I.Act will be available to him.

11.In the present case, the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount under Ex.A1 and on that the plaintiff filed the suit as the defendant failed to repay the debt covered under Ex.A1.

The very defence of defendant is that he never borrowed any amount under Ex.A1 and the plaintiff is not having such capacity to lend such amount of

Rs.5,80,000/- and in order to harass the defendant, the present suit is filed by forging his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note. The evidence of both parties is according to their pleadings.

12.According to Sec.101 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the plaintiff because he desires the court to give judgment basing on Ex.A1 promissory note. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant borrowed amount of

Rs.5,80,000/- under Ex.A1 and seeking the relief basing on specific liability of defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note. Hence, according to Sec.101 of Indian

Evidence Act, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that Ex.A1 promissory note is executed by the defendant.

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20268 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

In order to prove the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced Ex.A1 promissory note. In support of his contention, plaintiff also examined the scribe of Ex.A1 as PW2. Prior to evaluating the evidence of these witnesses with regard to proof of execution of Ex.A1, it is appropriate to refer the admitted facts between the parties. The plaintiff and defendant are brothers and there are disputes in between them with regard to properties and in relating to the same, a suit in O.S.25/2009 is also pending. As the contention of defendant is that he never executed Ex.A1 promissory note and there is no necessity for him to borrow amount from the plaintiff and further contention of defendant is that the plaintiff is not having such capacity to lend amount under Ex.A1. With these contentions, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that by borrowing amount under Ex.A1, the defendant affixed his signature on Ex.A1. If the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant executed Ex.A1, then the presumption u/s.118 of N.I.Act will be available to the plaintiff.

On scrutinizing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, their chief examination shows that the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of consideration thereunder. But, in view of the rivalry in between the parties with regard to properties, this court is of opinion that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 , 2 and DW1 is to be scrutinized carefully because there is a chance of speaking falsehood by both the parties.

13.The version of PW1 is that Ex.A1 promissory note was executed at the house of PW1 in Returu village and the PW2 is not the resident of Returu

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-20269 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

village. As per the version of P.Ws.1 and 2, except the parties to the present proceedings and PW2, none were present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant.

The contention raised by the defendant is that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.5,80,000/-. During the cross examination of PW1, it was stated by PW1 that an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- was withdrawn from the bank by PW1 to fund the loan under Ex.A1 promissory note. It is also stated by PW1 that he filed other suits against the several persons, but he did not remember how many suits were filed by him. As the defendant is contending that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend an amount of

Rs.5,80,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note and the cross examination of PW1 clearly shows that the PW1 closed his business about 7 or 8 years back from the date of his cross examination and the cross examination was done on 3-2-2015.

Hence, it clearly shows that the rice mill business of PW1 was closed about 7 or 8 years back. The present suit promissory note is dt.7-10-2007. Hence, it clearly shows that by the date of execution of Ex.A1, the plaintiff/PW1 closed his business.

14.The chief examination of DW1 is the denial of execution of Ex.A1 and denial of receipt of consideration thereunder. During the cross examination of DW1, a question was posed to him about getting of profits in rice mill business by PW1 and DW1 stated that he do not know about the receipt of profits if any.

But, the cross examination of PW1 clearly shows that 7 or 8 years back of his

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-202610 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

cross examination, the rice mill business was closed. Hence, it clearly probablising that the version of defendant about the incapacity of plaintiff to lend such huge amount of Rs.5,80,000/- under Ex.A1.

In a civil suit, a fact can be established or proved by preponderance of probabilities and a strict proof of incapacity need not be proved. During the cross examination of PW2 who is said to be the scribe of Ex.A1, he stated that he do not remember in which language he scribed Ex.A1 promissory note. It was also elicited during the cross examination of PW2 that he scribed Ex.A1 promissory note and also two other promissory notes to the plaintiff and previously the PW2 gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit as a scribe.

Admittedly, the PW2 is not resident of Returu village where the plaintiff is residing and where the Ex.A1 is said to be executed by the defendant.

Under these circumstances, the evidence of PW2 that he do not remember in which language he scribed Ex.A1, is weakening the case of the plaintiff. It is also stated by PW2 during the cross examination that he do not remember where he put his signature on chief affidavit and also stated that he do not remember whether he gone through the contents of his chief examination at the time of affixing his signature on the chief affidavit. The version of PW2 clearly shows that he will act as per the tune of PW1 and conveniently he is saying that he do not remember in which language the Ex.A1 was scribed and where he affixed his signature on chief affidavit.

15.The trial court framed the first issue as :-

Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, supported by consideration and the same is binding on the defendant ?

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-202611 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

Wherein, the burden is placed on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration under Ex.A1. The first issue clearly shows that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that Ex.A1 is executed by DW1 and consideration was passed under Ex.A1. Mere examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and production of Ex.A1 will not prove the passing of consideration under Ex.A1 because the trial court fixed the burden on plaintiff to establish that there is also passing of consideration under Ex.A1. If the plaintiff is able to establish the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to the defendant, then the presumption u/s.118 of

N.I.Act will be available to the plaintiff. But, in view of the pleadings and evidence of defendant, he clearly denied the execution of Ex.A1 and not admitted the signature on Ex.A1. In view of the rivalry in between the plaintiff and defendant, mere oral testimony of PW1and DW1 may not be sufficient to prove or disprove the version of plaintiff with regard to signature on Ex.A1.

The defendant has taken steps to get examine the signature on

Ex.A1 with the admitted signatures. In that process, the defendant got summoned the documents relating to the contemporaneous period of Ex.A1 and even prior to the Ex.A1. But, when these disputed and admitted signatures were sent to the expert, the expert opined that they cannot be compared as those signatures were in different pattern.

16.On perusal of Ex.A1, it was relating to the year 2007 and the bank vouchers which were summoned to get examine the Ex.A1 are also relating to the year 2007. As the defendant has taken necessary steps to get examine the

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-202612 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

Ex.A1 by an expert and clearly denying the signature on Ex.A1, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the signature on Ex.A1 is belongs to the defendant.

Mere examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and production of Ex.A1 will not prove the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. When the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the signature on Ex.A1 is belongs to the defendant and consideration was passed under Ex.A1 and PW1 stated during cross examination that he has withdrawn amount of Rs.4,70,000/- and by adding Rs.1,10,000/-, the consideration was given to the defendant under Ex.A1,the plaintiff has to produce such documentary proof to establish that he has such capacity to lend amount under Ex.A1. The non-filing of passbook or statements to shows that an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- was withdrawn from the bank account to fund the loan under

Ex.A1, this court is of opinion that withholding of best evidence is weakening the case of the plaintiff about passing of consideration under Ex.A1.

When the defendant is clearly denying the capacity of plaintiff under

Ex.A1 and it is also admitted by both parties that there are property disputes in between plaintiff and defendant, the burden is heavily on the plaintiff to establish that consideration was passed under Ex.A1. A the PW1 clearly stated that he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.4,70,000/-, the documentary proof will be available with him, but he failed to produce the same and hence this court is of opinion that the failure of PW1/plaintiff to produce the best evidence is leading to draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff regarding his financial capacity to lend amount under Ex.A1.

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-202613 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

17.Even if it is considered that by considering the chief examination of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.A1, the initial burden of proof of execution of Ex.A1 is discharged, then also that presumption which was available to the plaintiff u/s.118 of N.I.Act can be rebutted by the defendant through the cross examination of plaintiff side witnesses. If it is considered that the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff, then the steps taken by the defendant to get examine the Ex.A1 by an expert clearly showing that pattern of signature on Ex.A1 (disputed signature/questioned) and the signature on bank vouchers (admitted) was relating to the contemporaneous period are in different pattern. When the defendant is clearly saying that the signature on Ex.A1 is not belongs to him and the signature of defendant is in a different pattern, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the signature on Ex.A1 is belongs to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendant is an employee and the vouchers which were sent to the expert along with the Ex.A1 were the signatures of defendant during the regular course of his employment or business and as such, this court is of opinion that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the pattern of signature on Ex.A1 is also relating to the defendant.

But, the plaintiff failed to produce any documentary proof to show that the defendant is also having the habit of affixing signature as like the pattern in

Ex.A1, this court is of opinion that the initial burden of plaintiff is not discharged by a cogent evidence.

18.If by considering the quality of evidence, the efforts made by the defendant to get examine the Ex.A1 by an expert clearly shows that the

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-202614 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

defendant rebutted the presumption if any available to the plaintiff. The court has to see the quality of evidence, but not quantity of evidence. The record clearly shows that the expert opined that the authorship of questioned and disputed signatures cannot be established because of the different pattern in the signatures. If the plaintiff is able to produce any documentary proof to show that the defendant is also affixing his signature as like the pattern available in Ex.A1, then the oral testimony of PW2 will also useful to the plaintiff in establishing the execution of Ex.A1 by DW1. As the PW2 clearly stated that he cannot say in which language the Ex.A1 was scribed and the different pattern of signature clearly showing the probability of defence raised by the defendant.

19.It is also to be observed that there are disputes in between the PW1 and DW1 relating to property and a suit in O.S.25/2009 is pending, this court is of opinion that non-production of documentary proof to show the financial capacity of plaintiff, the non-taking of steps by the plaintiff to get examine the Ex.A1 with the other signature of defendant are probablising the defence of defendant. As the PW2 clearly stated that he is a frequent witness to the plaintiff in other litigation and he is also not resident of the place where Ex.A1 is said to be executed, this court is of opinion that the evidence of PW2 cannot be unshakable evidence in favour of the plaintiff. The inconclusive expert’s report does not benefit the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to prove the signature of defendant on Ex.A1 and as such this court is of opinion that the initial burden on the plaintiff is not discharged by cogent evidence and the burden cannot be

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-202615 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

placed on the defendant to prove that the signature on Ex.A1 not belongs to the defendant. In view of the rivalry in between the plaintiff and defendant even prior to the filing of suit, the evidence of witnesses is to be scrutinized carefully. As the defendant clearly denying the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and denying his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the signature on Ex.A1 is belongs to the defendant. If the PW2 did not state that he cannot say in which language the Ex.A1 was scribed, this court is of opinion that the evidence of PW2 is not with certainty of proper execution of

Ex.A1.

20.As both the plaintiff and defendant are brothers and Ex.A1 is not with any attestors and in view of the disputes in between parties with regard to property, these discrepancies in the versions of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to non- production of documentary proof to show the financial capacity of the plaintiff, the un-certainty of PW2 about the language in which Ex.A1 scribed are supporting the version of defendant. If there is no enmity between the parties, the production of Ex.A1 and the evidence of PW2 might be sufficient to say that initial burden of plaintiff was discharged. But, in view of the rivalry in between the plaintiff and defendant the discrepancies in between the versions of P.Ws.1 and 2 and as stated supra the non-production of material evidence of documentary proof of financial capacity of plaintiff and the proof of signature of defendant on Ex.A1 is not proving the case of the plaintiff. Hence the points 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff.

A.S.No.47/2024 Judgment, dt.29-1-202616 VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bapatla

Point No.3:

21.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid paragraphs, the judgment of trial court requires interference and the appeal is to be allowed. Accordingly the point No.3 is answered.

22.In the result, the Appeal is allowed without costs by setting aside the

Judgment and Decree in O.S.168/2010 dt.3-1-2024 on the file of Additional

Senior Civil Judge’s Court(FTC), Bapatla.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of January, 2026.

Sd/-K.SYAM BABU

VI Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined -Nil-

Sd/-K.SYAM BABU

VI Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), BAPATLA

Present :- Sri K. Syam Babu.,

VI Addll. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

Thursday, this the 19th day of February, 2026

Crl.M.P. No.242 OF 2026

in Crime No.90/2025 of Kakumanu P.S.

Between: Mohit Sikarwar (A5), s/o Virendra Singh, aged 27 years, R/o Zohare Nagar, Gober Chowk, Taj Ganj, Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

...Petitioner/A5

And

The State : SHO, Prathipadu Circle, Guntur District.

...Respondent/Complainant

This petition came up on this day i.e., on 19-2-2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt A.Vijaya Madhuri, Sri Perla M.Rahul, Learned counsels

for the petitioner/Accused and learned Additional public prosecutor having heard

both the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and having perused the record, this court made the following;

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/A5 under Sec.480 and 483 of

BNSS Cr.P.C., with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.90/2025 of

Kakumanu P.S. for the offence U/Sec.111(4) BNS, Sec.66 of I.T.Act.

The brief averments of the petition are that:

The accused A2 to A16 formed an organized crime syndicate with the common intention of earning illegal gains by committing cyber crimes. As part of the conspiracy, they procured corporate bank accounts and induced account holders to allow the use of such accounts for transferring fraud and online gaming funds in return for commission.

2

Accused A1, Managing Director of Indraprastha Hospital, Visakhapatnam, prior to 23.10.2025, came into contact with accused A2 and A4 and agreed to provide his corporate bank account for transferring online gaming funds in return for 50% commission. Accordingly, accused A1 handed over the SIM card linked to the hospital account, bank account details, Aadhaar card, PAN card, cheque book, and net banking kit. The account details were circulated through accused

A5, A7, A3, and A2. Accused A2 installed and operated an APK file sent by accused A7, enabling remote operation of the bank account. Thereafter, accused A2, A3, and A5 travelled to Indore and subsequently to Jaipur after suspecting accused A7. During this period, the syndicate executed a digital arrest fraud targeting the complainant, a retired government teacher residing in

Kommuru Village, Guntur District.

On 23.10.2025, henchmen of accused A9 and A12 contacted the complainant, impersonating CID/CBI officials, falsely accusing her of involvement in a human trafficking case. By using forged documents, counterfeit seals, and threats of arrest, they induced fear and gained her confidence. Under coercion, the complainant was directed to transfer money for “tallying” purposes.

₹ On 27.10.2025, the complainant transferred 22,00,000/- to an ICICI Bank ₹ account, and on 01.11.2025, she transferred 20,00,000/- to the Indraprastha ₹ Hospital account. On the same day, transactions totaling 84 lakhs were routed through the said account. The promised refund was never made, and the complainant realized she was cheated.

Crime No. 91/2025 was registered under Sections 318(4) and 111(4) BNS and Section 66D of the IT Act. Accused A1 and A3 to A6 were arrested, mobile phones and bank records were seized, and further investigation revealed the involvement of accused A7 to A16. Investigation is ongoing, and remaining accused are yet to be arrested.

3

Grounds for seeking bail:

The petitioner/A5 is an innocent person and he did not commit any offence whatsoever, the petitioner/A5 falsely implicated in this crime. The remand report is silent how the petitioner came into contact with A1. Remand report does not disclose about who shared the bank account details of A1 to the petitioner. The provisions of Sec.318(4) of BNS and Sec.66D of IT Act are not applicable to the petitioner. The entire prosecution is framed up one and foisted a false case against the petitioner based on conjuctures and surmises. The acts against the petitioner does not constitute organized crime as defined u/s.111 of the BNS, 2023. Petitioner has to look after the welfare of his widow mother, wife and two kids. He has got permanent residence at Taj Ganj, Agra, U.P. Petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 50 days.

On receipt of notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor denying the contentions of petitioner/Accused, It is contended by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor that if the accused is enlarge on bail, he will try to tamper the evidence by way of hook or crook which will become difficult to the police to get the accused convicted. Investigation is not yet completed and hence opposed the bail.

Heard Both sides.

Now point for determination is: whether the petitioner/A5 is entitled for bail as prayed for ?

Point :

The record reveals that L.Ws.1 to 6 were examined. The learned counsel

for petitioner submitted that the custody of petitioner is not required for further

investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no previous cases to attract the provisions u/s.111 of BNS and the petitioner is an innocent person and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and prayed for enlarge him on bail. The learned APP submitted that the investigation is not completed and the arrest of some of the accused persons who are close associates of this petitioner in the crime is pending. It is further 4 submitted by the learned APP that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it will not be possible to conclude the investigation in a proper manner and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

While considering the bail application, the court has to see the following:

(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended.

(b) The possibility of the applicant of fleeing from justice;

(c) The potential severity of the punishment upon conviction is also a major fact;

(d) The possibility of the likelihood of accused to repeat similar or other offence; and likelihood of absconding of accused;

On considering the nature and gravity of offence, a huge amount is involved in the crime, the petitioner is not the resident of within the jurisdiction of this court. It is also to be considered that it is a cyber crime and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is also chance of tampering the evidence.

Hence, this court is of opinion that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, point is answered.

In the result, petition is dismissed.

Typed directly, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- K.SYAM BABU

VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge(FTC), Bapatla.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), BAPATLA

Present :- Sri K. Syam Babu.,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

Thursday, this the 19th day of February, 2026

Crl.M.P. No.206 of 2026

in Crime No.112/2022 of Ponnur Urban P.S.

Between: Nannepaga Bhupalam, s/o Purna Chandra Rao, aged about 36 years, Peddagajulavarru village, Tsunduru mandal, Bapatla District.

And ...Petitioner/Accused

The State : SHO, Ponnur Urban P.S., ...Respondent/Complainant

This petition came up on this day i.e., 19-2-2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Jaya Ratnam(Jeeva), Learned counsel for the petitioner/ Accused and learned Additional public prosecutor having heard both the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor having perused the record, this court made the following;

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/Accused under Sec.480 and 483 of

BNSS Cr.P.C., with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.112/2022 of

Ponnur Urban P.S. for the offences U/Sec.498-A, 307 of IPC.

The brief averments of the petition are that:

LW1 along with her children residing with the accused/husband at

Pedagajuluru village, Tsunduru mandal. The accused is addicted to vices.

When the LW1 asked the accused to abandon his vices, the accused is torturing

LW1 and not caring the children also. The accused spent all the money and gold for his vices given by the parents of LW1 at the time of marriage. The accused used to send LW1 to bring money from her parents. Due to unbearable torture, LW1 came down to her parents and took shelter there. On 11-5-2022 at about 5:30 pm in the absence of L.Ws.2 and 3(mother and sister of LW1), 2 accused went to the house of mother of LW1, picked up folding knife from his pant pocket and stabbed LW1 on her throat and right hand shoulder and caused injury with a view to kill her and declared that he would kill her any how. On arrival of L.Ws.2, 3 and 5, accused fled away from there. LW1 was shifted to

CHC, Ponnur and on hospital intimation, LW12 visited to CHC, Ponnur and recorded the statement of LW1 and basing on the statement of LW1, LW13 registered a case in Cr.No.112/2022 u/s.498-A, 307 IPC. Police arrested the accused on 29-8-2022 and sent him for remand.

Grounds for seeking bail:

The petitioner/Accused is an are innocent and he did not commit any offence whatsoever much less the alleged offence. The police arrested the petitioner on execution of NBW on 17-9-2025 and in turn sent him to judicial custody. Respondent/police filed charge sheet against the accused.

On receipt of notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor denying the contentions of petitioner/Accused and stated that the accused may pose a threat to the victim and witnesses and opposed the bail.

Heard Both sides.

Now point for determination is: Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for bail as prayed for ?

Point :

The record reveals that the L.W.1 to 8 are examined, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. It is clearly contended by the learned APP that the petitioner/ accused may pose threat to the victim and witnesses in this case and opposed the bail.

While considering the bail application, the court has to see the following:

(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended and the age of the accused; 3

(b) The antecedents of the applicant, including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizance offence;

(c) The possibility of the applicant of fleeing from justice;

(d) The possibility of the likelihood of accused to repeat similar or other offence;

(e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant;

The record reveals that L.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, there is no chance of causing disturbance in further investigation.

Since the charge sheet is also filed, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail on certain conditions.

Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail on his executing bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum of each to the satisfaction of Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur.

Typed directly, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- K.SYAM BABU

VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge(FTC), Bapatla.

Copy to : The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur

Cri.M.P.No.135 of 2026 1 / 3

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPET

Present: S.Ramesh., XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday, the fifteen [15th] day of May, 2026

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.135 of 2026

in Crime No.7 of 2024 of Narasaraopet I Town Police Station Between: Shoban Babu TC,Petitioner/ s/o.TV chandrashekar @ Taridalu Chandra Sekhar Sobhan Accused No.3 Babu, age 45 years, D.No.923, 16th main road, 19th cross road, Judicial layout, Bangalore North, Bengalore GKVK, Karnataka. A N D The State,Respondent/ through itsInspector of Police, Narasaraopet I Town P.S.Complainant. --o0o-- Subject: Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS. @ @ @ @ The above numbered Petition is presented before me on 14-05-2026 in the presence of Sri G.Kiran Kumar- Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri G.V.S. Prasad-

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/ Respondent, the matter having stood

over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:

// O R D E R // ========== The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition [Crl.M.P] is filed on behalf of the petitioner/ accused No.3, seeking pre-arrest [anticipatory] bail.

[1].Facts of the case in brief [as per record] are that__

The informant- G.Manoj Kumar, maintaining Fly Abroad Solutions, used to send the people to abraod for securing the jobs, sent the list of persons to A.1, on receiving information collected money from the candidates but under the instructions of A.1 and deposited the same in three bank accounts stands in the name of Shoban Babu Chandra Sekhar [account No.01690154075], Mupparapu

Nageswara Rao [account No.923010012352415] and Mupparapu Krishnaveni

Cri.M.P.No.135 of 2026 2 / 3 [922010062041236] and also gave the mobile number one Surekha Chowdary. On which the informant collected around Rs.2 crores and transferred the amount to the said three accounts, she in turn informed that the Visa will be sent through Vinod.

The informant waited some period but not received Visa papers, when asked the said Vinod sent sponsership letters for 19 candidates through whats app, then the informant informed seven persons [namely Jyothi, Suni Jose Anto, Angel Jose,

Aswathi Krishnan, Surendra Babu, Anil Arya, Bhargav] to apply in imigration to get the Visas and come to know that there Visas are rejected. Then the informant submitted application to UK adminsitration, and later come to know that he was cheated and a criminal case was registered against said Vinod and when questined the said Surekha Chowdary abused and threatened the informant.

On receiving report from the informant the Inspector of Police,

Narasaraopet I town Police has registered the case against the said Vinod Kumar [A.1] and others for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

[2]. Notice is given to the Respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has strongly opposed the petition.

[3].Heard arguments. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the report there is no specific allegation against the petitioner the case was created with false allegations, the petitioner has permanent abode at his native place, the petitioner bread winner to the family, the petitioner is innocent apprehending danger of arrest, therefore the relief sought for may be granted.

In reply the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner/ accused No.3 and 6 are residing in abroad the offence levelled against the petitioner is cheating the persons and collected huge amount from the victim party, there are chances to threaten the victim party.

[4]. The case record shows that the alleged offence levelled the petitioner are punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the counsel represented that the petitioner is staying Karnataka State, to which the prosecution represented that the petitioner now is in abroad, the accused in this case deliberately conspired together to a tune of about Rs.2 crores from the victim party. Considering the gravity of offence, circumstances of this case on hearing arguments from both sides, this court is

Cri.M.P.No.135 of 2026 3 / 3 not inclined to allow this petition.

[5].As result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur District at Narasaraopet.

Copy to the:

Advocate for the Petitioner [on payment of usual (court fee) charges].

Cri.M.P.No.148 of 2026 1 / 3

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPET

Present: S.Ramesh., XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

Tuesday, the nineteenth [19th] day of May, 2026

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.148 of 2026

in Crime No.90 of 2026 of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station Between: Kokkera Veera Pavan Yadav,Petitioner/ s/o.Ramudu, age 33 years,Accused Petlurivaripalem, Narasaraopet Mandal, Palnadu Dist. A N D The State,Respondent/ through its Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural P.SComplainant. --o0o-- Subject: Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS. @ @ @ @ The above numbered Petition is presented before me on 18-05-2026 in the presence of Sri K.Buchi Dantachari- Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri G.V.S. Prasad- Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/ Respondent, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:

// O R D E R // ========== The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition [Crl.M.P] is filed on behalf of the petitioner/ accused, seeking bail.

[1].Monosyllabically facts of the case [as per record] are that__

The informant- K.Rajitha [married woman, age 29 years, hereafter refers to as the ‘victim’] residing in her parents house, by taking advantage of her loneliness at about 10-30 am on 24-03-2026 the petitioner sent message to her mobile informing that he is loving he would sent the money and asked to give her considering special relationship and he continued to send the messages till 27-03- 2026. On the next day at about 07-30 am she accompanied by the parents went to the house of the petitioner, he was absent, she informed the attitude of the

Cri.M.P.No.148 of 2026 2 / 3 petitioner to his parents. Even then the petitioner continued his attitude. Having no other go she filed report and the Sub Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural Police registered the case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 78(1)(i), 351(2) of BNS, took-up investigation arrested the petitioner, forwarded him to the court for remand.

[2]. Notice is given to the Respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has opposed the petition.

[3].Heard arguments. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations in the FIR are false, baseless and politically motivated the petitioner is in innocent and educated person working in Assistant Professor in a college considering the remand period, the relief sought for may be granted.

In reply the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the there is a possibility to tamper the evidence to threatened the material witnesses in case if the petition is considered at this stage, since investigation is completed.

[4]. The case record shows that the evidence is electronic evidence since the messages are from one mobile to another mobile, as per the remand report the alleged offences are under section 78(1)(i), 78(1)(ii), 238 and section 351(2) BNS.

As the learned Public Prosecutor fairly represented to the court that the investigation is completed, question of tampering the evidence may not arise, considering all facts and the circumstances of the case, on hearing arguments, the court inclined to allow this petition.

[5].As result the petition is allowed, the petitioner/Accused is hereby ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing his personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S.Ramesh,

XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur District at Narasaraopet.

Cri.M.P.No.148 of 2026 3 / 3

Copy to the:

1.I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

2. Advocate for the Petitioner [on payment of usual (court fee) charges].

// True Copy//

Chief Administrative Officer, XIII Additional District Court, Narasaraopet.