Sri K.Syam Babu

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.1/9 APPR000002772021

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Sri K.Syam Babu,

Special Judge for Trial of Offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of May, 2026.

Spl. Sessions Case No.5 of 2021

(Crime No.150 of 2020 of Bestavaripeta Police Station)

Prosecution:Smt. Y.Prasanthi Kumari Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri Y.Sunil Kumar

Name(s) of the Accused: 1. Mirampalli Chenna Keshavulu, son of Macherla, aged 28 years, Rajaka by caste, Resident of Singarapalli Village, B.V.Peta Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Mirampalli Keshaiah, son of Macherla, aged 32 years, Rajaka by caste, Resident of Singarapalli Village, B.V.Peta Mandal, Prakasam District.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 324, 323 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of theScheduledCastesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the accused.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.2/9 Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 & 2 not guilty of the offences punishable Under Secs.324, 323 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

As no case property has been produced before this Court, no property order is passed.

--o0o--

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Markapur Sub-Division, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Cr.No.150 of 2020 of Bestavaripeta Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the

Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989’).

2.Briefly stated, the contents of the charge sheet are that, the de facto complainant, namely, Kamunuri Chandra Sekhar, belongs to

Mala community, which is a Scheduled Caste, and is a resident of

Singarapalli Village, Bestavaripeta Mandal. The accused Nos.1 and 2, who are own brothers, belong to Rajaka community, which falls under

Backward Class and not under Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, and they are also residents of the same village.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.3/9 It is alleged that accused No.1 was maintaining close acquaintance with one Smt. Sri Kala, who is the aunt of the de facto complainant. The same was allegedly noticed by her husband, namely,

James, who admonished accused No.1 and advised him not to speak with his wife, but accused No.1 paid deaf ear to the same. Thereafter, the de facto complainant informed the matter to one of their elders, namely,

Kamunuri Venkateswarlu, and requested him to advise accused No.1 not to interact with Sri Kala. Accordingly, the said Kamunuri Venkateswarlu contacted accused No.1 over phone and questioned him regarding his conduct, to which accused No.1 allegedly responded in a rude and abusive manner using vulgar language.

While matters stood thus, on 11.08.2020 at about 02:30 p.m., accused No.1 went to the house of one Marri Venkata Narayana for obtaining rice soup for transplantation work in his agricultural field. At that time, the de facto complainant along with his associates, namely, Darla

Venkateswarlu and Kamunuri Hari Krishna, approached accused No.1 and questioned him as to why he abused Kamunuri Venkateswarlu over phone when he was only advised regarding his behaviour towards Sri

Kala. At that juncture, accused No.1 entered into a verbal altercation with them, and in the meanwhile, accused No.2 also came there. Thereupon, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up a quarrel with the de facto complainant and his associates and abused the de facto complainant in filthy language by referring to his caste name as “Mala naa kodaka”. By abusing so, the accused No.1 beat the de facto complainant with a stick on his head, causing a bleeding injury, and also bite the right ear of Darla

Venkateswarlu, resulting in bleeding injuries. Accused No.2 beat the de facto complainant and one Kati Ankaiah, who intervened to pacify the quarrel, with hands and legs, thereby causing injuries to them. It is also stated that the complainant party, in turn, beat accused No.1 and caused

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.4/9 injuries to him. Thereafter, the de facto complainant approached B.V.

Peta Police Station and lodged a report regarding the said incident.

On the strength of the report submitted by the defacto complainant, the SHO, B.V.Peta Police Station, registered a case in

Cr.No.150 of 2020 under Secs.354-D, 324, 323 r/w.34 of IPC and

Secs.3(1)(r)(s)(w)(ii) & 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, submitted FIR to the Court and copies to all the concerned. On receipt of copy of FIR and authorization from S.P., the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Markapur Sub-Division took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch and then secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements.

Meanwhile, sent up requisition to the Tahsildar concerned for issuance of caste certificates of the complainant as well as accused. While the investigation is in progress, on 03.09.2020, he arrested the accused

Nos.1 & 2 and produced before the Court of Magistrate for remand. The medical officer, who examined the injured-defacto complainant, issued wound certificate to that effect. After receipt of all necessary documents and on completion of investigation, the SDPO laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Secs.324, 323 r/w.34 of I.P.C and Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Cognizance

3.On file of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Secs.3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused Nos.1 & 2.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.5/9

4. On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 & 2, they were examined U/s.228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby having heard the Spl. Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Sections 324, 323 r/w.34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 have been framed and read over to the accused, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

LW.3-Kati Ankaiah, LW.5-Kamunuri Hari Krishna, LW.7-S.V.Subbarao,

Tahsildar, LW.8-Dr. K.Anusha, Medical Officer, LW.9-M.Saleem, H.C.,

LW.10-G.Nageswara Reddy, SDPO, LW.11-Dr M.Kishore Kumar, SDPO, since the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 4 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was dispensed with, since there is no incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, who turned hostile.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused Nos.1 & 2 committed the offences punishable under Secs.324, 323 r/w.34 of IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubts?

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.6/9 POINT

9.In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined

PWs.1 to 4. Among them PW.1 is the defacto complainant cum injured

Victim. PW.2 is also projected as victim of the crime by contending that he was being subjected to atrocity in the hands of the accused. PWs.3 & 4 are the independent eye witnesses to the occurrence.

10.The PW.1 who is the injured victim -cum- defacto complainant, who set the criminal law into motion as PW.1 deposed

before this Court that, he do not know A1 and A2 and that he has not filed

any case against them. However, he identified his signature on the report as that of him, and the same is marked as Ex.P1, but pleaded ignorance of its contents. He further deposed that, he sustained injuries when he fell down from the motorbike and that police did not examine him.

11.The PW.1 being the injured victim and defacto complainant, did not support his own case and turned hostile. His evidence is free from incriminating substance. As such, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined him at length, yet nothing suitable to the case of prosecution could be elicited.

12.The same is the case with PWs.2 to 4. They also deposed on similar lines as PW.1, stating that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police never examined them. Thus, PWs.2 to 4 have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile.

Their evidence, therefore, does not in any manner advance or substantiate the case of the prosecution.

13.On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is manifest that

PW.1, who is the de facto complainant-cum-injured witness, PW.2, who is

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.7/9 also projected as one of the victims of the incident, and PWs.3 and 4, who are cited as direct eyewitnesses to the occurrence, have not supported the case of the prosecution in any material particular. None of these witnesses attributed any overt acts to the accused persons nor did they depose anything incriminating so as to connect the accused with the alleged offences or the occurrence in question.

14.As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, who are the material witnesses, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other circumstantial witnesses and official witnesses, since no purpose would be served even if they are examined.

15.In cases of this sort, wherein the allegations pertain to caste- based atrocity and voluntarily causing hurt, the evidence of the de facto complainant-cum-victim assumes considerable significance. When the victim himself fails to support the prosecution case and does not speak about the alleged incident, there remains no substantive evidence to proceed against the accused. Further, the material witnesses, namely, the direct eyewitnesses to the occurrence, have also turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution version. Consequently, the very foundation of the prosecution case stands shattered.

16.Upon careful appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P1 to P5, and in the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is wholly devoid of incriminating material insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are concerned. The prosecution has thus failed to establish the guilt

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.8/9 of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences charged against them. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to acquittal. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 & 2 not guilty of the offences punishable Under Secs.324, 323 r/w.34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

As no case property has been produced before this Court, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

Special Judge for trial of offences

under SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum- VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the ProsecutionFor the Accused

PW.1: Kamunuri Chandra Sekhar -None- PW.2: Darla Venkateswarlu PW.3: Kamunuri Venkateswarlu PW.4: Marri Venkata Narayana

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 Page No.9/9

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the report given to police Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.4

On behalf of the Defence : -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

Spl.Judge-cum-VII A.D.& S.J. Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021

APPR000002772021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Sri K.Syam Babu,

Special Judge for Trial of Offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of May, 2026.

Spl. Sessions Case No.5 of 2021

(Crime No.150 of 2020 of Bestavaripeta Police Station)

Prosecution:Smt. Y.Prasanthi Kumari Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri Y.Sunil Kumar

Name(s) of the Accused: 1. Mirampalli Chenna Keshavulu, son of Macherla, aged 28 years, Rajaka by caste, Resident of Singarapalli Village, B.V.Peta Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Mirampalli Keshaiah, son of Macherla, aged 32 years, Rajaka by caste, Resident of Singarapalli Village, B.V.Peta Mandal, Prakasam District.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 324, 323 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of theScheduledCastesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the accused.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 & 2 not guilty of the offences punishable Under Secs.324, 323 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property As no case property has been produced before this Court, no property order is passed.

DATES OF

Date of occurrence:11.08.2020 Date of report:11.08.2020 Date of appearance:01.06.2022 Date of commencement of trial:07.05.2026 Date of closure of trial:08.05.2026 Date of hearing :08.05.2026 Date of Judgment:11.05.2026

Explanation for Delay :

On file of charge sheet before this Court, the case is taken cognizance vide Spl. S.C.No.5 of 2021 on 29.01.2021 and posted for appearance of the accused. At this stage the case is adjourned from time to time due to non-service of summons amid Covid-19 pandemic. At last, on receipt of summons, the accused present before this Court on 01.06.2022 and on the same day copies of case documents were furnished to the accused and the case is posted for hearing on charges. At this stage also the case is adjourned from time to time due to unreadiness of both parties. At last on 19.12.2025 after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, charges framed under Sections 324, 323 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. The trial of this case commenced on 07.05.2026 and concluded by 08.05.2026. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 examined and Exs.P1 to P5 marked and as the material witnesses turned hostile, this Court closed the evidence of other list of witnesses. After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material in the

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2021 evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and on the same day both side arguments heard and on 11.05.2026 judgment is pronounced acquitting the accused. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

Special Judge-cum-VII Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

1

APPR000019232026

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

Before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri K.Syam Babu, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Fourteenth (14th) day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.216 of 2026

(Crime No.557 of 2025 of Ongole Taluk Police Station)

Between:

1. Undela Venkateswara Reddy, son of Tirupathi Reddy, aged 56 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.6-213, Srinagar Colony, 3rd Lane, Ongole, Prakasam District.

2. Undela kalyana Kumar Reddy, son of Obula Reddy, aged 23 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.6-163B, Srinagar Colony, 3rd Lane, Ongole, Prakasam District.

3. Madathala Chandra Sekhar Reddy, son of Srinivasa Reddy, aged 26 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.6-207D, Srinagar Colony, Near Keerthi School, Ongole, Prakasam Dist.

4. Pothuluri Raghavendrachari, son of Markandeyulu, aged 26 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.448, Srinagar Colony, 1st Lane, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Petitioners/A12, A13, A22 & A23

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant 2

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petition presented before me on 12.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao - Advocate for the Petitioners/ A12, A13, A22 & A23 and of Smt. Y.Prasanthi Kumari, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant/Respondent, and after hearing the counsel for both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners/A12, A13,

A22 & A23 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, requesting this Court to enlarge them on anticipatory bail that they have been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime No.557 of 2025 of Ongole

Taluk Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 132, 121 (1), 189 (2), 191 (2) r/w.190 of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case is that :

The complainant, Sri G.Ravi Kumar, Constable of Ongole Traffic

Police, while discharging his routine duties on the instructions of his superior officers, was deputed on 09.09.2025 at about 11:00 a.m. to regulate traffic at the

Kurnool Road flyover bridge point, Ongole, along with the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Ongole Taluk Police Station. At that time, the Sub-Inspector of Police, through the man-pack set, informed them that a huge crowd had gathered during the Ganesh Procession and instructed them to clear the traffic. At about 12:00 noon, the members of the Ganesh Idol Committee, numbering more than 300, were proceeding in a procession from Kuchipudi Bazar, Kurnool Road, Ongole, in vehicles bearing registration Nos. AP 03 TB 8857 and AP 26 W 4986, with loud DJ music, dancing in the streets, and causing nuisance and traffic obstruction. They had thus formed themselves into an unlawful assembly. Acting on the instructions of the S.I. of Police, videography of the entire scene was undertaken. When the S.I. of Police and his staff informed Accused Nos.1 to 5 that no permission had been granted to bring vehicles into the town and that their 3 conduct was causing obstruction to traffic and inconvenience to the general public, the accused persons refused to comply. Instead, they pushed away the

Sub-Inspector, who was on duty in uniform. On witnessing this, the complainant rushed to the rescue of the Sub-Inspector. At that juncture, A1 to A13 and about 50 others, including women, surrounded the police officials and assaulted them with their hands. A1 in particular caught hold of the complainant’s throat and pressed it with an intention to kill him, thereby obstructing them from discharging their lawful duties. Meanwhile, additional police force rushed to the spot and rescued the complainant and the Sub-Inspector from the clutches of the accused. The accused persons, however, continued to abuse and threaten both the complainant and the Sub-Inspector with dire consequences. Subsequently, the complainant went to Ongole Taluk Police Station and lodged a report regarding the incident, basing upon which the present case was registered.

Thus, the case.

3.Grounds for seeking bail : The petitioners/ A12, A13, A22 & A23 are innocent and they did not commit any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry at the instance of the ruling party and that no specific overt acts are attributed against them except their inclusion under the vague expression “others”. It is contended that even according to the averments in the report of the defacto complainant and the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, the alleged incident occurred all of a sudden during the course of a large Ganesh procession and in the heat of the moment while the participants were allegedly reacting to the force used by the police personnel, and therefore the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 132, 121(1), 189(2), 191(2) r/w 190 of the BNS are not attracted. Further, no police personnel sustained any injuries in the alleged incident and as such invocation of Section 109 BNS is unwarranted and has been deliberately added only to prevent the petitioners from securing bail.

4

Substantial portion of the investigation has already been completed, all material witnesses have been examined and material objects were seized, and therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioners is no longer necessary. The petitioners claim to be respectable persons of Ongole town having roots in society and submit that their arrest would seriously affect their reputation and livelihood. They further undertake to cooperate with the investigation, appear

before the investigating agency as and when required, not to tamper with

evidence or threaten witnesses, and also express their willingness to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court.

4.Notice furnished to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, she opposed the grant of bail.

5.Heard both the sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioners/ A12, A13, A22 & A23 are entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail or otherwise?

POINT:

7.While considering the anticipatory bail 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 before arrest is made;

(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 cognizable offence;

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

(d) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or other offence; 5

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

(f)Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in case of large magnitude affecting a vast number of people.

8.On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners. It is also observed that no police personnel sustained any injuries in the alleged incident, no weapon was seized in connection with the crime, and the petitioners have no prior criminal antecedents. Coming to the investigation, the Investigating Officer has so far examined ten material witnesses. Coming to the investigation, the Investigating

Officer has already examined several material witnesses and the investigation is pending only for identification of some more accused. For the said purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear to be necessary. It is further relevant to note that the complainant and all the material witnesses examined so far, as well as those yet to be examined, are police personnel.

Hence, there is little likelihood of the petitioners tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, as they are official functionaries discharging their duties. Having regard to the well-established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the stage of investigation, the absence of specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners, and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A12,

A13, A22 & A23. However, imposition of certain conditions would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed granting the anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A12, A13, A22 & A23, subject to the following conditions:

i.Petitioners/ A12, A13, A22 & A23 are directed to surrender before the learned III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, within ten 6 (10) days from today and upon their surrender, the learned Magistrate shall be released them on bail upon furnishing a personal bond for

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand Only) each along with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate.

ii. Petitioners/ A12, A13, A22 & A23 shall appear before the concerned

Investigation Officer as and when their presence is required.

iii. Petitioners/ A12, A13, A22 & A23 shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. Furthermore, they are prohibited from making any direct or indirect inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer.

iv. That in case if the petitioners/ A12, A13, A22 & A23 failed to comply with any of the above directions, the police are at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

2. The S.H.O., Ongole Taluk Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioners.

// t. c. f. b. o. //

Chief Administrative Officer,

VII-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

1

APPR000019572026

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Sri K.Syam Babu,

Special Judge for Trial of Offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989 – cum - VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.221 of 2026

(Crime No.113 of 2026 of Ongole Taluk Police Station)

Between:

Vadranam Surya Kiran, son of Umamaheswara Rao, aged 32 years, Resident of Door No.5/208, NGO Colony, Opp. Power Office, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/A2

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant -0o0-

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petition presented before me on 12.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri Kareti Srinivasulu & Sri B.R.Shashank - Advocate for the Petitioner/A2 and of Smt. Y.Prasanthi Kumari, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant/Respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

This bail application has been filed by the petitioner/A2 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requesting this Court to grant him regular bail that he has been falsely implicated in the case registered as Cr.

2

No.113 of 2026 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 74, 79, 331 (6), 118 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and that the petitioner/A2 has been remanded to judicial custody on 24.04.2026.

2.Notice furnished to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, she opposed the grant of bail.

3.Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to grant regular bail.

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioner/A2 is entitled for grant of regular bail or

otherwise?

POINT:

6.This Court has perused the crime records and the bail application and has given its thoughtful consideration to the matter. Upon such evaluation, it is seen that the de facto complainant/victim, Kotikala Krishna Veni, a resident of Chandraiah Nagar, 4th Lane, Ongole Town, belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Mala community) and resides with her parents. Her father is engaged in cable TV connection work, in which she assists him. Accused Nos.1 and 2, who belong to the Yadava community, are residents of the same locality. During the COVID- 19 period, when the victim was studying Intermediate, Accused No.1 allegedly used to harass her in the name of love, for which her mother had earlier reprimanded and slapped him. On 05.03.2026 at about 6:30 PM, while the victim was returning home alone on her scooter after completing cable work and reached a dimly lit area behind Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Accused Nos.1 and 2 followed her on another scooter, intercepted her, and restrained her movement. Accused No.1 caught hold of her hand, and both the accused abused her and her mother in vulgar language. The victim managed to escape and reached home, whereupon her mother questioned the conduct of Accused No.1. Thereafter, Accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into the house of the victim, abused her by making vulgar and defamatory allegations about her character, attempted to assault her father, and behaved in an aggressive manner. Accused No.1 3 further threatened to commit rape and intentionally insulted and humiliated the victim by uttering caste-based abuses in filthy language. During the incident, Accused No.1 also pelted stones at the victim, one of which struck her leg and caused injury. Thus, the case.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are omnibus and general in nature and that no overt act constituting the major offences alleged is specifically attributed to him. It is further contended that the petitioner has no role in the alleged caste- related abuses and that he has been implicated only due to previous enmity between the parties. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in further detention. It is also contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and prayed to enlarge him on bail.

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition contending that there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A2 along with Accused No.1. It is submitted that both the accused jointly followed the victim, wrongfully restrained her, abused her in filthy language, criminally trespassed into her house, intimidated her family members, and humiliated the victim by referring to her caste name. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the investigation is still in progress, some material witnesses are yet to be examined, and the crime vehicle used in the commission of the offence is yet to be seized. Further, the antecedents of the petitioner clearly disclose his criminal propensity and if he is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his threatening the de facto complainant and prosecution witnesses, tampering with the evidence, and disturbing public peace. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

9.This Court has carefully perused the crime records, remand report, case diary material, and the averments made in the petition. The prosecution case, prima facie, discloses that the de facto complainant/victim belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala community) and that on the date of the incident, the petitioner/A2 along with Accused No.1 followed the victim on a scooty, intercepted her movement, restrained her, abused her in filthy language, and thereafter criminally trespassed into her house and intimidated the family members of the 4 victim. The allegations further disclose that the accused intentionally insulted and humiliated the victim by uttering caste-based abuses in public view. Anent to the above allegations, the petitioner is in jail from 24.04.2026.

10.The material available on record at this stage prima facie reveals the involvement of the petitioner/A2 in the commission of the offences alleged. It is also pertinent to note that the investigation is still pending. Material witnesses are yet to be examined and the crime vehicle allegedly used in the commission of offence is yet to be seized. At this stage, release of the petitioner on bail may adversely affect the progress of investigation.

11.Further, this Court cannot ignore the criminal antecedents of the petitioner/A2. The prosecution has placed material showing that the petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases i.e., Cr.No.95 of 2023 of Ongole Taluk Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Cr.No.156 of 2018 of Tangutur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 IPC. Apart from the above cases, a rowdy sheet is also being maintained against the petitioner/A2 in Ongole Taluk Police Station. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the accusations, the stage of investigation, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, and the reasonable apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding threat to witnesses and tampering with evidence, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner/A2. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the petition is DISMISSED.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

2. The S.H.O., Ongole Taluk Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioners.

// t. c. f. b. o. //

Chief Administrative Officer,

VII-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

1

APPR000018502026

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

Before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri K.Syam Babu, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.189 of 2026

(Crime No.158 of 2026 of Ongole Taluk Police Station)

Between:

Thumma Subhashini, wife of Koteswara Rao, aged 42 years, Hindu, Resident of East Harizanawada, Karavadi Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/A7 A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petition presented before me on 08.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao - Advocate for the Petitioner/A7 and of Smt. Y.Prasanthi Kumari, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant/Respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/A7 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, requesting this Court to grant her anticipatory bail that she has been falsely implicated in the case registered as Cr. No.158 of 2026 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 324 (4), 79, 331 (5), 351 (2) r/w. 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case is that :

On 29.03.2026 at about 3.00 PM, in connection with the TDP formation day celebrations near Ambedkar statue at Karavadi village, the accused persons removed the TDP flag and flagpole and insulted the same by stamping it with their feet. When the defacto complainant, namely, Kasukurthi

Kamala questioned their acts, the accused allegedly abused her in filthy language, pelted stones at her house and criminally intimidated her. It is further alleged that A-1 trespassed into the bed room of the complainant while the remaining accused stood outside and instigated him to bring her outside as she was recording videos. A-1 allegedly threatened the complainant with dire consequences and forcibly obtained her mobile phone and deleted certain photos and videos therefrom. Thus, the present case came to be registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

3.Grounds for seeking bail :

The petitioner/A7 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry prevailing in the village. It is contended that the alleged offences under Sections 324(4), 79, 331(5), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS are not attracted to the facts of the present case and that the contents of the FIR and remand report are inconsistent with each other. It is further submitted that A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 are members of the Ambedkar Statue

Committee of Karavadi village and disputes arose when certain sympathizers of

Telugu Desam Party allegedly installed a party flag pole near the Ambedkar statue without the consent of the committee members. In that background, owing to political pressure and village rivalry, the present case is alleged to have been foisted against the accused including the petitioner.

The petitioner/A.7 is a woman, working as an agricultural coolie, eking out her livelihood through daily wages and maintaining her family 3 consisting of her husband and children. The petitioner is stated to be a permanent resident of Karavadi village having fixed abode and sufficient solvent sureties and there is no likelihood of her absconding. It is further submitted that the other accused persons, namely A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6, who are alleged to be the main accused, were already enlarged on bail by the learned III Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, vide orders dated 09.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.2026 of 2026, and therefore, the petitioner also claims parity. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

4.Notice furnished to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, she opposed the grant of bail.

5.Heard both the sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioner/A7 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail or

otherwise?

POINT:

7.While considering the anticipatory bail 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 before arrest is made;

(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 cognizable offence;

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

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

(e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting them; 4

(f)Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in case of large magnitude affecting a vast number of people.

8.On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the Investigating Officer has already examined as many as six material witnesses and also seized the material objects. Thus, substantial part of the investigation appears to have been completed. The specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner/A7 are also required to be tested during the course of investigation and trial. Further, admittedly, the petitioner is a woman and stated to be an agricultural coolie eking out her livelihood through daily wage work. It is also pertinent to note that the other accused persons, namely A1, A2 and A4 to A6, who are alleged to be the principal accused, were already enlarged on bail by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, vide orders dated 09.04.2026 in

Crl.M.P.No.2026 of 2026. Therefore, the petitioner/A7 is also entitled to claim

parity. Further, there is nothing placed before this Court to show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of further investigation or that there is every likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the stage of investigation, the fact that the petitioner is a woman, coupled with the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed granting the anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A7, subject to the following conditions:

i.Petitioner/A7 is directed to surrender before the SHO, Ongole Taluk P.S., within ten (10) days from today and upon her surrender, she shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand Only) along with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigation Officer.

ii. Petitioner/A7 shall appear before the concerned Investigation Officer as and when her presence is required.

iii. Petitioner/A7 shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required.

5

Furthermore, she is prohibited from making any direct or indirect inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer.

iv. That in case if the petitioner/A7 failed to comply with any of the above directions, the police are at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

2. The S.H.O., Ongole Taluk Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioner.

// t. c. f. b. o. //

Chief Administrative Officer,

VII-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

1

APPR000018532026

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

Before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri K.Syam Babu, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.192 of 2026

(Crime No.14 of 2026 of Chirala II-Town Police Station)

Between:

Garika Rajesh, son of Sankara Rao, aged 40 years, ST-Yerukala by caste, Working as Junior Asst., O/o.ASWO, Darsi, H.No.16-18-3, Venkatadri Nagar, Near Saibaba Temple, Paparaju Thotal, Chirala, Presently residing at Cherukupalli Village, Bapatla District. … Petitioner/A3 A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Chirala II-Town Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petition presented before me on 08.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Srinivas Rao - Advocate for the Petitioner/A3 and of Smt. Y.Prasanthi Kumari, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant/Respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/ A3 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a request to enlarge him on bail that he has been falsely implicated in the case registered as Cr. No.14 of 2026 of Chirala II-Town Police Station, for the offences punishable 2 under Sections 108 r/w.3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and that he has been remanded to judicial custody on 16.04.2026.

2.Notice furnished to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

3.Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to grant regular bail.

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioner/A3 is entitled for grant of bail or otherwise?

POINT:

6.This Court has perused the crime records and the bail application and has given its thoughtful consideration to the matter. Upon such evaluation, it is seen that the deceased Nos.1 and 2, being mother and son, were eking out their livelihood by running a tiffin cart at Chirala. About three years prior to the incident, they borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the accused, who were allegedly carrying on illegal finance business, at an exorbitant rate of interest. Though they were paying interest, they failed to repay the principal amount due to financial constraints. In that connection, the accused persons are alleged to have frequently visited the tiffin cart and subjected the deceased to continuous harassment and criminal intimidation, demanding repayment of the amount and threatening them with dire consequences, including uttering words to the effect of asking them to repay the amount or die. Unable to bear such persistent mental harassment and humiliation, the deceased developed severe mental agony. On 13.01.2026 at about 7:30 PM, both the deceased purchased petrol, went to a vacant site, poured petrol on themselves, and set themselves ablaze. They were shifted to hospital, where Deceased No.1 was declared dead, and Deceased No.2, after giving a statement to the police, succumbed to injuries on 17.01.2026. Initially, the case was registered under Section 194 BNSS, and subsequently, based on the dying declaration of Deceased No.2, the section of law was altered to Section 108 BNS read with Section 3(5) BNS. Thus, the case.

3

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the case. It is further contended that there is no direct instigation on their part to attract the offence of abetment of suicide and that the deceased have taken the extreme step on their own accord. It is also contended that entire investigation in this case is completed and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the pending investigation, if any, and hence seek to enlarge him on regular bail.

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the allegations disclose a grave offence of abetment of suicide arising out of illegal money lending and continuous harassment. It is submitted that the accused are running illegal finance business without any license or permission and relevant loan documents are yet to be seized from their possession. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage and at this point of time if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he will tamper the investigation and prayed for dismissal of the petition. It is further argued that A3 is involved in several offences. Thus, the petitioner has criminal antecedents. It is apprehended that if bail is granted at this stage, the petitioner may threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence, and continue illegal activities. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

9.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, involving abetment of suicide of two persons, including a vulnerable family engaged in small livelihood activity. Anent to the above allegations, the petitioner is in jail from 16.04.2026. The material placed before the Court, particularly the statement of Deceased No.2, prima facie discloses that the petitioner along with other accused subjected the deceased to continuous harassment and intimidation in connection with repayment of debt. The record further reveals that the petitioner is allegedly engaged in illegal finance business, and the investigation is still pending, particularly with regard to seizure of loan documents and examination of material witnesses. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner, cannot be ignored at this stage. The involvement in multiple prior offences indicates a tendency to engage in unlawful activities.

10.Further, there exists a reasonable apprehension that, if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence, 4 threaten or influence the witnesses, abscond from the jurisdiction, and continue the illegal finance activities. It is well settled that bail is a discretionary relief, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that such relief ought not to be granted in cases involving serious offences, particularly where the accused have criminal antecedents and for a fair and effective investigation. Considering the gravity of the offence, nature of allegations, stage of investigation, and antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the petition is DISMISSED.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chirala.

2. The S.H.O., Chirala II-Town Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioner.

// t. c. f. b. o. //

Chief Administrative Officer,

VII-Addl. District Court, Ongole.