Lagisetty Venkateswara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri L.Venkateswara Rao

Special Judge for the trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act,

Rajamahendravaram.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl. M.P.No.328/2026 in Cr.No.22/2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri

Between:

Kovvasi Venkata Rao Dora, S/o: late Krishnudu @ Krishna Murthy, Age 49 years, Formerly worked as Field Officer-cum-Deputy Manager (Advances), SBI, Bathili Branch, Parvathipuram, Manyam District,

R/o: D.No.1-100, Near Santha Nuyya Street ..Petitioner/Accused No.3

And

The State Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Station House Officer, CID PS, A.P. Amaravathi, Mangalagiri

rep., by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor...Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on 08.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.S. Prakasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioner/Accused

No.3 and the Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

2

1.This bail petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner/Accused No.3 under Section 483 of BNSS (Sec.439 Cr.P.C.) in Crime No.22/2024 of

Central Investigation Department, A.P., Mangalagiri of the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to enlarge him on bail.

2. The case of the Prosecution in brief:

A1/ Sri Kavala Venkata Narasimham, S/o: Suryanarayana approached Prakkilanka ADB during June, 2019 to September, 2019 for sanctioning of credit facilities under Agricultural Assets Backed Loan (AABL) fraudulently in his own name and in the names of his friends namely 1) Sri Tadikamalla Sureswara Gupta, 2) Sri Uppu Surya

Chandraras, 3) Smt Lalitha Kumari Addagarla, 4) Sri Ravi Kumar Tanuku,

5) Smt Addagarla Sai Lakshmi Prasanna, 6) Smt GaddeSrivani, 7) Smt

Tadikamalla Vimala Rani, 8) Sri Balla Swamy Ayyappa, 9) Smt Balla Surya

Kumari, 10) Smt Durga Devi Mogali, 11) Sri Venkata Subba Rao

Addagarla, 12) Smt Posiveni Kommana, 13) Sri Gorripudi Siva Babu, 14)

Sri Kollapu Dileep, 15) Smt Addagarla Varalakshmi, 16) Smt Addagarla

Surya Kalavath, 17) Smt Uppu Venkata Lakshmi, 18) Smt Uppu

Nagamani, 19) Sri Adapa Venkata Subbarao, 20) Sri Yadagiri Satish, 21)

Sri Suribabu Kommana, 22) Sri Mogali Veera Mohan Rao, 23) Smt

Gorripudi Suja Rani, 24) Sri Addagarla Vijaya Krishna to secure the credit facilities of the above accounts.

3

A1/Kavala Venkata Narasimham, Smt. Gadde Sri Vani, Smt. Balla

Surya Kumari, Sri Balla Swamy Ayyappa, Smt. Gorripudi Suja Rani, Smt

Durga Devi Mogali, Sri Addagaria Vijaya mortgaged their properties as collateral security for availing all the said loans. The above borrowers executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Branch. The details of the limit sanctioned to the borrowers with loan amount outstanding against each of them and the details of the mortgaged properties are furnished in detail in the Annexures-I & II in the report. He approached the bank along with other borrowers with the dishonest intention from the beginning to cheat the bank.

He acted with dishonest Intention to gain wrongfully and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank. Various transactions made in his own account by transferring amounts from other borrowers with their active support to establish the cheating of the bank and he misappropriated the funds of the bank. A1/Kavala Venkata Narasimham used the money for his own purposes and he in collusion with others committed fraud, cheating, Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust and other offences.

Though all the borrowers have availed Agricultural Asset Backed

Loans, none of them were having Agricultural lands and they are all residing at faraway places (25 Kms away from the Branch) and do not meet the eligibility criteria. The loans were availed against inflated valuations of 6 properties of third-party Guarantors. Out of six properties, one property is not identifiable. Another property did not 4 have layout approval from Urban Development Authority and does not have approach road from main road, hence not accessible. Those properties should not have been considered as security for the loans in terms of the extant guidelines of the Bank as detailed in Annexures.

In the loan appraisal, it was mentioned that the loan sanctioned for other activities said to be based on civil estimates to be done at different agriculture lands of borrowers at various villages mentioned in the appraisal. But no civil estimates were obtained from panel engineer and the lands shown in the appraisal of the respective borrowers either do not exist or not in the names of the borrowers.

The loan amounts of the borrowers were disbursed and thereafter credited to the account of A1/Kavala Venkata Narasimham without consent/ mandate of the some of the borrowers.

In respect of all the loans, pre-sanction inspection was conducted by Sri M Udaya Kiran, previous Branch Manager who also processed, assessed, and sanctioned the loans in LOS without involving the Field officer, though the Branch is provided with Field Officer, by exceeding discretionary powers vested with him.

A3/Field Officer, Kovvasi Venkata Rao Dora, during his tenure at

Prakkilanka ADB as Deputy Manager (Advances) from 14.06.2019 to 29.05.2021, has not processed any of the above mentioned AABLs in

LOS but has signed as Processing Officer in the Appraisal for the 22

AABL loans.

5

A2/Tamilrusan Stalin Babu has sourced all the 25 AABLs sanctioned at Prakkilanka Branch. During his tenure as Branch Manager of Kovuru Bazar Branch from 06.09.2017 to 05.06.2020, he has authorized opening of 16 CIFs at Kovvur Bazar Branch. Out of 16 CIFs were opened without opening savings/ Current account or Fixed deposit accounts. For 8 accounts, there are no transactions in the accounts. All these customers were sanctioned AABLs at Prakkilanka ADB Branch For all the AABLS, LOS entries were completed at Kovvur Bazar Branch

Further Sri Tamilarasan Stalin Babu acted as a witness to the registered

Sale Deed Nos.645/2019 and 1094/2019, related to properties mortgaged at Prakkilanka ADB Branch for sanction of AABLs.

Upon receipt of the complaint from the present Branch Manager

Sri A Raja Kumar, a detailed departmental investigation was ordered, and it was found that there were many lapses in sanction of the loans including the involvement of Stalin Babu, previous Branch Manager,

Kovvur Bazar Branch, where he had sanctioned similar loans to Kavala

Venkata Narasimham and others by him. After detailed enquiry it was noticed that M.Udaya Kiran, previous Branch Manager of Prakkilanka

ADB in connivance with A2/Tamilarasan Stalin Babu, Previous Branch

Manager, Kouvur Bazar Branch and customers, A1/Kavala Venkata

Narasimham and Gadde Srivani has sanctioned loans by violating the

Bank's norms beyond his discretionary powers and also misuse of the vested powers. Sri Kouvasani Venkata Rao Dora, Deputy Manager 6 (Advances) is also involved in the process of sanction of all these loans by not following the laid down systems and procedures.

A1/Kavala Venkata Narasimham was the mastermind in preparing the plan and executing the same in connivance with others to defraud the Bank. He arranged his henchmen and friends as borrowers to avail loans from the Branch under AABL scheme and influenced the Bank officials to sanction and disburse the loan amount ignoring the basic principles of lending relating to per-sanction inspection, appraisal and assessment, documentation, creation of equitable mortgage, disbursement and post sanction follow up. After sanction, the loan proceeds were misappropriated/ diverted by way of credit to the accounts of A1/Kavala Venkata Narasunham, instead of crediting to the loans accounts of the respective borrowers.

The panel valuer Satyanarayana Reddy, in collusion with the borrowers, has inflated the values of the properties which are not at par with the prevailing market rates. One of the properties is not identifiable and the other is not having an approved layout. The panel Advocate Smt

K.Sridevi has given the Title Investigation Report in all the cases.

The Bank officials failed to follow the Bank's extant guidelines related to processing, sanctioning, and disbursement of the loans,

Loans were sanctioned without carrying out meaningful inspections, verifying CIBIL report of the borrowers and other details of the borrowers before sanction of the loans.

7

Thus, A1/Kavala Venkata Narasimham in collusion with other borrowers, bank officials and middlemen with malafide criminal intention misled the Bank and diverted public money to his own account and thus, they all committed the offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating, misappropriation of public funds and criminal breach of trust.

3. The case of the petitioner/Accused No.3 in brief:

The petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence and he is no way concerned or connected in commission of the alleged offence with other accused. He is nothing to do with the above said crime and he is subordinate to A2 and A3 Officers and he has to follow the instructions of his superiors.

He even does not know what is the nature of the offence that was alleged to have committed and he has no knowledge or connivance in commission of the alleged offence. The material witnesses were already examined and the investigation in the above case is also practically completed and he is ready and willing to produce sufficient sureties for the satisfaction of this court and abide any conditions imposed by the

Court for his release. Hence, the petition.

4. Notice is given to Respondent/Complainant. They filed counter reiterating the remand averments.

They opposed the petition contending that the offences are serious economic nature, involving huge public funds and criminal conspiracy among multiple officials and private persons. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to trace the flow and 8 utilization of misappropriated funds, identify other beneficiaries and middlemen, recover documents and digital evidence and uncover the entire modus operandi adopted in similar loan frauds and investigation is in progress. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is entitled to be released

on bail as prayed for?

POINT:

7.Case Diary perused.

The petitioner is Accused No.3 in this case. He is said to have worked as Field Officer-cum-Deputy Manager (Advances), SBI, ADB

Branch, Prakkilanka at relevant point of time and at present he is working as Branch Manager, SBI, Bhathili Branch, Parvathipuram,

Manyam District. He is a permanent resident, having permanent abode.

He was arrested by the Respondent/Police on 22.04.2026 and produced

before this Court on the same day and ever since he has been in judicial

remand.

8.Record shows A1 is the prime accused in the case and entire fruad amount was said to be diverted in to the account of A1 and his family members.

It is seen from the record that A2 and A4 were working as Branch

Managers at SBI, Kovvur and Prakkilanka Branches at relevant point of 9 time and they played active role in the case in collusion with A1 and

Valuer.

9.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after unearthing of the fraud in the case departmental action was initiated against the petitioner herein, A2 and A4 and A.2 and A.4 were removed from service and they found only the dereliction of duty of the petitioner in the case and as such two annual increments of the petitioner was postponed thereby, he contends the petitioner is victim at the hands of

A2 and A4, then Branch Managers of the SBI.

10.The fact that in the departmental enquiry only two annual increments of the petitioner were postponed and A2 and A4 were removed from service is not disputed by the Respondent/Police. Though A2 and A4 were arrested in the case long back and spending sufficient time in the judicial remand and the petitioner herein was arrested on 22.04.2026, till date, the prosecution is not able to place any material to show that any of the fraud amount was transferred into the account of the petitioner or his family members.

11.Material witnesses are said to be examined and major part of the investigation as far as the involvement of the petitioner herein appears to be completed.

12.Since the petitioner has been working at distance place in

Parvathipuram Village, Manyam District from the place where the alleged offence at SBI, Prakkilanka Branch in West Godavari District is committed, the possibility of the petitioner to tamper the bank records or influence or threaten the witnesses having acquaintance with the case is remote.

10

13.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and role of the petitioner in the above crime and his period of incarceration, this Court is satisfied to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to the following conditions.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

14.In the result, this petition is allowed.

(1) The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail on his execution of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

(2) The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall appear before the Investigating

Authority on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet or until further orders of this Court.

(3) The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not directly or indirectly influence or threaten the witnesses having acquaintance with the facts of the case and shall cooperate with the investigation.

(4) The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not leave India without the permission of this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally signed by L VENKATESWARA

L VENKATESWARA RAO

RAO

Date: 2026.05.11 12:30:41 +05'30'

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copies to:

1. The Public Prosecutor.

2. The petitioner through his counsel.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri L.Venkateswara Rao

Special Judge for the trial of cases under Prevention of

Corruption Act, Rajamahendravaram.

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026

Crl. M.P.No.304/2026 in Cr.No.30/2022 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri

Between: Kothapalli Venkata Rama Vara Prasad, S/o: Trimurthulu (late), Age 46 years, R/o: D.No.7-17-57, ARR Residency, Kondavalli Road, Bhimavaram,

West Godavari District..Petitioner/Proposed Accused

And

The State Rep., Deputy Superintendent of Police CID Regional Office, Visakhapatnam

..Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.V.S. Pardhu and Sri Syed Feroz, Advocates for the

Petitioner/Accused and the Special Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.The Petitioner is Accused in the aforesaid crime. The crime is registered against some others for the offences punishable under section 420, 403, 409 2 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He filed this petition under section 482 BNSS, 2023 to grant pre-arrest bail to him, apprehending arrest at the hands of Respondent/Complainant. 

2. The case of the Prosecution in brief:

Accused Palanki Venkata Surya Subrahmanayam along with A1 to A3 and A5 approached the State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch for sanction of credit facilities in their individual names under Kisan Credit Card / Agri.

Asset Backed Loan Scheme for the purpose of rearing fish (pisciculture) in tanks taken by them on lease which was sanctioned on 29.11.2018 and A1

Tolapu Anil Kumar had offered his open plot property at RS No.329/1 at

Anakoderu Village, West Godavari District as collateral security for all the loans of A1 to A5. 

During the course of routine audit conducted in the branch certain irregularities were observed in respect of the above loans on that a detailed investigation was ordered and the investigating officer submitted his report. 

Their investigation reveals the borrowers Accused Nos.1 to 5 already availed loans at different banks on the same property with the same purpose and it was suppressed with malafide intention to cheat the bank and gain unlawfully. Thus a single fish tank is leased to multiple borrowers by the lessors and they all availed loans by suppressing the existing loans leading to multiple financing and borrowers and thereby cheated the branch by diverting and misappropriated the public funds of Rs.1.04 crores without using for the purpose for which they were granted and committed criminal breach of trust. 

3

On that on the report given by then Regional Manager, Sri

B.Rajasekharam, SBI, Tadepalligudem, the aforesaid crime is registered against A1 to A8 by the respondent/complainant and investigated into. 

3. The case of the Petitioner in brief:

The Petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case. He is a realtor by profession with a clean record and has been engaged in fish pond business and he has no prior criminal antecedents. He is an Income Tax

Assesse since 2014 and regularly maintaining account regarding his fish pond business.

Subsequently he was summoned on 17.03.2026 by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, CID, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam regarding this

Crime, the petitioner approached CID, RO, Visakhapatnam on the same day and gave statements and proofs regarding the transactions.

This crime registered against A1 to A8. Whereas A1 to A5 are borrowers, A6 is

Bank Manager, SBI, A7 is the Field Officer of SBI and A8 is the valuer. In the year 2018, A2 had availed loan of Rs.22,00,000/- from SBI, Bhimavaram and

A2 transferred Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner for purchasing material relating to fish pond business.

Accordingly, he submitted that he is innocent in this case and pre-arrest bail may be granted to him on any condition as the respondent/police are making attempts to arrest him.

4.Notice on this petition is given to the Respondent/Police and they filed counter opposing the petition.

In the counter, they reiterated the averments in the remand report and contends that this is a case of cheating, misappropriation of public fund, 4 criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct by a public servant that occurred prior to 18.05.2022 at Garapavaram Branch, W.G.

District and reported on the same day by the de-facto complainant B.

Rajasekharam, (Regional Manager) alleged that during the tenure of the accused A6 and A7 fraudulent loan transactions took place in this case. 

They were conspired with the A1 to A5/borrowers and in collusion with the A-8/Valuer and some others committed the criminal acts by violating the

Bank norms and extant guidelines related to Kisan Credit Card/Ag Asset

Backed Loan scheme processed loans beyond his discretionary powers sanctioned five loans to an amount of Rs.1.04 crores backed with collateral

Security of immovable proper belongs to A1 for the purpose of rearing fish(Pisciculture) in tanks taken by A1 to A5 on lease from the lessors by suppressing the existing loans (Multiple finance) on the lease property and diverted the funds to accounts of unrelated borrowers for dubious usage. 

A1 to A5 were bank officials it is established that A6 defaulted repayment of loan and caused loss to the bank and on verification and enquiry by the RBO, Tadepalligudem & A7 being a public servants, conspired with A1 to A5, inflated values to the collateral property in connivance with A8/Valuer which are not at par with the prevailing market rates and some others committed the acts for wrongful gain by availing the loans and there by cheated the bank.

Basing on the report of complainant a case in Cr.No.30/2022 under sections 420, 403, 409 r/w 120(b) IPC and Sec 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 of CID

PS, AP, Mangalagiri was registered and investigated into.

During the course of Investigation, the then Investigation Officer DSP,

RO, Rajahmundry examined the complainant and other witnesses, collected original loan documents and other relevant information from the authorities 5 and conducted field enquires with regard to genuineness of pisciculture as admitted by the borrowers.

Subsequently, the cases were transferred to him from DSP, RO,

Rajamundry on 28.08.2025 from CID, RO, Rajahmundry vide

C.No.8907/EOW, C13/CID/AP/2025, dated 13.08.2025 of the DGP, CID,

Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri and took up further investigation.

An amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was transferred to the petitioner on 20.12.2018 through SB Account of A2 and these transfers of huge amounts to the petitioner account are surely subject to verification as these transactions does not seem to be done in a regular course of business and hence, these transactions are to be verified thoroughly to ascertain the complicity of the petitioner. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition. 

5.Heard arguments of both sides.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to the Petitioner/Proposed

Accused as prayed for?

POINT:

7.Case diary perused.

The crime is registered against eight accused in the year 2022, among them A1 to A5 are the borrowers, A6 is the Branch Manager, A7 is the Field

Officer and A8 is the Valuer. The name of the proposed accused is not shown in the FIR and prosecution also categorically stated in their counter that no crime is registered against the petitioner and he is being summoned in the case under section 160 Cr.P.C. to verify the transaction of Rs.10,00,000/- into the account of the proposed accused from the SB Account of A2 dated 20.12.2018.

6

8.The contention of the petitioner is that he is doing real estate business besides fish pond business and the alleged transaction of Rs.10,00,000/- in his account from the account of A2 in the case is relating to the purchase of material relating to fish pond business.

The copies of Income Tax Returns filed along with the petition and the receipts issued by Ujyasri Sai Ram Traders in the name of the proposed accused, prima-facie shows that he is doing business.

9.It is brought to the notice of this Court by both sides that the petitioner was arrested in four similar cases of this nature alleging that he acted as a middleman in the loans and after spending sufficient time in the judicial custody, he was enlarged on bail in all five cases with certain conditions and one of the said condition is that he shall appear before the Investigating Officer in this case on every alternative Sundays between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and he is complying the said condition. 

10.Considering the above facts, the apprehension of the petitioner that he is likely to be arrested in this case after receipt of notice under section 160

Cr.P.C. to verify the cash transaction in his account from the account of A2 looks to be convincing.

Since the petitioner has been attending before the Investigating Officer in other cases and he also appeared before the Investigating Officer in this case on receipt of notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. to verify the cash transaction in his account from the account of A2 further custodial investigation of the petitioner may not be necessary.

11.In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

7

12.In the result, this petition is allowed.

(1) The Petitioner/Proposed Accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on his execution of personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the respondent/complainant or arresting authority.

(2) The Petitioner/Proposed Accused shall appear before the

Investigating Authority on every alternative Sundays between 9.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet or until further orders of this Court.

(3) The Petitioner/ Proposed Accused shall not directly or indirectly influence or threaten the witnesses having acquaintance with the facts of the case and shall cooperate with the investigation.

(4) The Petitioner/ Proposed Accused shall not leave India without the permission of this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

L VENKATESWARA Digitally signed by L

VENKATESWARA RAO

RAO

Date: 2026.05.07 16:56:00 +05'30'

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copies to:

1. The Public Prosecutor.

2. The petitioner through his counsel.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri L.Venkateswara Rao

Special Judge for the trial of cases under Prevention of

Corruption Act, Rajamahendravaram. Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

Crl. M.P.No.287/2026 in Cr.No.2/RCT-EWG/2026

Between: The State: Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru.… Petitioner/Complainant

And

1. Kampa Suresh Kumar, S/o: Ranjit Kumar, Age 53 years, Drugs Inspector, Jangareddygudem, Eluru District R/o: Srirama Enclave, 5th Floor, Road No.1, Central Excise Colony, Vijayawada

2. Tadikamalla Veerabhadra Appala Durga Naga Siva Ramakrishna, S/o: Ramakrishna, Age 52 years, Owner of the Murali Krishna Medicals, Aswaraopet Road, Jangareddygudem, R/o: Flat No.107, Venkateswara Apartments, Chidaramabaram Hospital Road, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District … Respondents Nos.1 and 2/AO1&A2 2

This petition is coming on 05.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner/Complainant and Sri M.Bhaskar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1/Accused Officer and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Eluru Range, Eluru filed this petition under section 349 of BNSS seeking the Court to direct the Accused Officer No.1/Sri Kampa Suresh Kumar, Accused

No.2/Tadikamalla Veerabhadra Appala Durga Naga Siva Ramakrishna and the defacto complainant/Sri Achyutha Baba Venkata Durga Sai to attend

before the Director, EWG Section, A.P.S.F.S.L., Mangalagiri for recording

their specimen voices for comparing the same with the questioned voice which is said to be recorded by the defacto complainant during the conversations among them.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief:

A.O.1 demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the defacto complainant through A2 for doing an official favour i.e., to process the file of the complainant to get Drug Licence in the name and style of Sri Sai

Medical Agencies, Jangareddygudem.

3

The A.O.1 and A2 were arrested by ACB Officials at 2.00 hours on 20/21.02.2026 and produced before this Court on 21.02.2026 for judicial remand and subsequently, they were enlarged on bail.

The version of prosecution is the defacto complainant had recorded pre-trap conversation using his voice recorder that took place between himself, A.O.1 and A2 in his mobile on 20.02.2026 and he handed over the same to DSP, ACB on 20.02.2026 along with his complaint in the form of pen drive who copied the contents of the said conversation into pen drive and seized the pen drive for investigation after following due procedure.

Later the DSP, ACB submitted the said pen drive to the Hon’ble Court along with remand report (Form 60) and the said voice conversation is crucial to prove their case and recording was played before the mediators who reduced the same into writing in the Mediators Report No.I on 20.02.2026 and the said mediators report was also sent to this Court along with remand report.

It is therefore prayed to compare the voices recorded in the aforesaid pen drive with the specimen voices of the defacto complainant,

AO1 and A2 stated supra at SFSL, Andhra Pradesh, at Mangalagiri is essential for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the petition.

3.Notice on this petition is given to the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

They filed counter opposing the petition contending that voice spectrography test cannot be conducted without the consent of the accused as it constitutes an invasion of the right to privacy under Article 4 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition appears to be an attempt to cover up investigative lapses and divert the Hon’ble Court’s attention and the petitioner has not provided any cogent legal basis for such a request and the absence of prior permission for recording the respondents’ voice samples is violation of principles of natural justice of Accused Officer.

Accordingly, they prays to dismiss the petition.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

POINT:

6.This is a case of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.20,000/- by the A.O.1 through A2 for doing an official favour to the defacto- complainant.

7.The contention of the prosecution is the defacto complainant recorded the conversation between himself, A.O.1 and A2on 20.02.2026 through his mobile phone wherein A.O.1 demanded bribe from him for doing official favour through A2 and he copied the same in pen drive and handed over the same to the DSP, ACB on 20.02.2026 along with his complaint and to establish the identity of the voices, it is essential for the prosecution to take the voice samples of the defacto complainant, A.O.1 and A2 to send the same for opinion of expert at FSL, A.P. at Mangalagiri for comparison.

5

In Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

(AIR 2019 SC 3592)

The Hon’ble Apex Court held the Court has power to order an accused person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime and such power has to be conferred on a

Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of

jurisdiction vested on the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

8.As it is the specific case of prosecution from the inception that the defacto- complainant recorded the conversations that were taken place between himself, A.O.1 and A2 in connection with his work, where-in he alleged to have demanded bribe from him and he got converted the conversation into pen drive and handed over the same to DSP who in turn played before mediators and conformed the demand of bribe in the said conversation, in the opinion of this court, comparing such recording with specimen voices of the defacto complainant, A.O.1 and A2 would be helpful for this court to arrive for just determination of the case during the course of trial.

9.Therefore, it is expedient, to meet ends of justice, to direct the defacto complainant, A.O.1 and A2 to give their voice samples before the

Director, SFSL, Mangalagiri for comparison of their voices with the disputed voices, which was produced by the defacto complainant in the form of pen drive.

6

Hence, overruling counter averments, this petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of prosecution.

10.In the result, this petition is allowed.

(1) The petitioner/prosecution shall obtain appointment from the

Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri for voice test of the Defacto-complainant i.e.,

Atchyutha Baba Venkata Durga Sai, Accused Officer No.1 i.e., Kampa

Suresh Kumar and Accused No.2 i.e., Tadikamalla Veerabhadra Appala

Durga Naga Siva Ramakrishna within three weeks from today.

(2) Since the Accused Officer No.1 and Accused No.2 are said to be released on bail by now, they are directed to go for voice test along with the defacto- complainant as and when required by the petitioner/complainant and attend before Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri.

(3) Prosecution is directed to observe human rights of A.O.1 and A2 strictly while conducting the voice test.

(4) The test report shall be submitted to this court as soon as possible.

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

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

Digitally signed by L

L VENKATESWARA RAO

VENKATESWARA RAO

Date: 2026.05.08 15:26:14 +05'30'

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Copy to the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri L.Venkateswara Rao

Special Judge for the trial of cases under Prevention of

Corruption Act, Rajamahendravaram. Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

Crl. M.P.No.248/2026 in Cr.No.3/RCT-EWG/2026

Between: The State: Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru.… Petitioner/Complainant

And

1. Sadu Suresh Kumar, S/o: Durga Rao, Age 39 years, Forest Section Officer, Narasapuram and I/c Bhimavaram, R/o: MIG-II, H.No.130, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, N/o: D.No.2-16, Opp: Pet College, Dendeluru Mandal, Gopannapalem, Eluru District.

2. Kavuru Venkata Ramanjaneya Swamy, S/o: Narasimha Swamy, Age 52 years, Agriculture, Bantumilli Village, Srungavruksham Panchayath, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District. … Respondents Nos.1 and 2/A.O. & Friend of Defacto Complainant 2

This petition is coming on 05.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner/Complainant and Sri M.Bhaskar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1/Accused Officer and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Eluru Range, Eluru filed this petition under section 349 of BNSS seeking the Court to direct the Accused Officer/Sri Sadu Suresh Kumar and friend of defacto complainant/Sri Kavuru Venkata Ramanjaneya Swamy to attend before the Director, EWG Section, A.P.S.F.S.L., Mangalagiri for recording their specimen voices for comparing the same with the questioned voice which is said to be recorded by the defacto complainant during the conversations among them.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief:

The Accused Officer demanded and accepted a bribe of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the defacto-complainant for doing an official favour "for not seizing the saw mill of the complainant and for not initiating any action against him.”

The A.O. was arrested by ACB Officials on 24.02.2026 and produced

before this Court on 25.02.2026 for judicial remand and subsequently, he

was enlarged on bail.

3

The version of prosecution is the defacto complainant along with his friend/Kavuru Venkata Ramanjaneya Swamy went to the office of AO and the complainant had recorded pre-trap conversation using his voice recorder that took place between AO and friend of complainant in his mobile on 17.02.2026 and he handed over the same to DSP, ACB on 23.02.2026 along with his complaint in the form of pen drive who copied the contents of the said conversation into pen drive and seized the same for investigation after following due procedure.

Later the DSP, ACB submitted the said pen drive to the Hon’ble Court along with remand report (Form 60) and the said voice conversation is crucial to prove their case and recording was played before the mediators who reduced the same into writing in the Mediators Report No.I on 24.02.2026 and the said mediators report was also sent to this Court along with remand report.

It is therefore prayed to compare the voices recorded in the aforesaid pen drive with the specimen voices of the friend of defacto complainant and AO stated supra at SFSL, Andhra Pradesh, at

Mangalagiri is essential for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the petition.

3.Notice on this petition is given to the Respondent No.1.

He filed counter opposing the petition contending that voice spectrography test cannot be conducted without the consent of the accused as it constitutes an invasion of the right to privacy under Article 4 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition appears to be an attempt to cover up investigative lapses and divert the Hon’ble Court’s attention and the petitioner has not provided any cogent legal basis for such a request and the absence of prior permission for recording the respondents’ voice samples is violation of principles of natural justice of Accused Officer.

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

POINT:

6.This is a case of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.4,00,000/- by the Accused Officer for doing an official favour to the defacto- complainant.

7.The contention of the prosecution is the defacto complainant recorded the conversation between his friend/Kavuru Venkata

Ramanjaneya Swamy and A.O.on 17.02.2026 through his mobile phone wherein A.O. demanded bribe from him for doing official favour and he copied the same in pen drive and handed over the same to the DSP, ACB on 23.02.2026 along with his complaint and to establish the identity of the voices, it is essential for the prosecution to take the voice samples of the friend of defacto complainant and A.O. to send the same for opinion of expert at FSL, A.P. at Mangalagiri for comparison.

5

In Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

(AIR 2019 SC 3592)

The Hon’ble Apex Court held the Court has power to order an accused person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime and such power has to be conferred on a

Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of

jurisdiction vested on the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

8.As it is the specific case of prosecution from the inception that the defacto- complainant recorded the conversations that were taken place between his friend/Kavuru Venkata Ramanjaneya Swamy and AO in connection with his work, where-in he alleged to have demanded bribe from him and he got converted the conversation into pen drive and handed over the same to DSP who in turn played before mediators and conformed the demand of bribe in the said conversation, in the opinion of this court, comparing such recording with specimen voices of the friend of defacto complainant and AO would be helpful for this court to arrive for just determination of the case during the course of trial.

9.Therefore, it is expedient, to meet ends of justice, to direct the friend of defacto complainant and AO to give their voice samples before the Director, SFSL, Mangalagiri for comparison of their voices with the disputed voices, which was produced by the defacto complainant in the form of pen drive.

6

Hence, overruling counter averments, this petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of prosecution.

10.In the result, this petition is allowed.

(1) The petitioner/prosecution shall obtain appointment from the

Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri for voice test of the friend of Defacto- complainant i.e., Kavuru Venkata Ramanjaneya Swamy and Accused

Officer i.e., Sadu Suresh Kumar within three weeks from today.

(2) Since the Accused Officer is said to be released on bail by now, he is directed to go for voice test along with friend of defacto- complainant as and when required by the petitioner/complainant and attend before Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri.

(3) Prosecution is directed to observe human rights of A.O. strictly while conducting the voice test.

(4) The test report shall be submitted to this court as soon as possible.

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

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

Digitally signed by L

L VENKATESWARA RAO

VENKATESWARA RAO

Date: 2026.05.08 15:25:42 +05'30'

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Copy to the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri L.Venkateswara Rao

Special Judge for the trial of cases under Prevention of

Corruption Act, Rajamahendravaram. Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl. M.P.No.378/2026 in Crl.M.P. No.638/2025 in C.C. No.168/2018

Between: Dasari Hanumantha Rayudu S/o: late Sreeramachandra Murthy, Age 53 years, Sub-Treasury Officer, O/o Dy. Director, District Treasury Office, Eluru,

West Godavari District. ... Petitioner/Accused Officer

And

State Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Eluru Range, Eluru.... Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on this day i.e., on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Bhaskar, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused Officer and Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

2

1.The Petitioner/Accused Officer filed this petition under section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. seeking permission from this Court to extend the earlier permission granted vide Crl.M.P. No.638/2025 in C.C. No.168/2018 dated 31.10.2025 to go to USA by extending the permitted period up to 30.08.2026 and pass such other necessary orders as the court deems fit.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief:

This Court vide Crl.M.P.No.638/2025 in C.C. No.168/2018 dated 31.10.2025 was pleased to permit the Accused Officer to travel to USA for the period from 01.03.2026 to 30.06.2026 subject to certain conditions for attending the graduation ceremony of his daughter. He has duly complied with all the conditions imposed by this Court in the aforesaid order.

After obtaining the aforesaid permission order, while processing

VISA formalities, the Consulate General of USA insisted upon submission of Police Clearance Certificate for processing the VISA application of the petitioner.

Immediately, the Accused Officer approached the local police authorities for issuance of P.C.C. and the local police authorities did not issue the same stating that the present case pertains to ACB Authorities and therefore, they are not competent to process the same. Subsequently, the Accused Officer approached the ACB Authorities at Eluru seeking necessary clearance for issuance of PCC.

3

As no other alternative and in order to comply with the VISA requirements, the Accused Officer approached the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana by filing W.P.No.11843/2026 seeking appropriate directions regarding issuance of PCC and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent authorities to issue PCC by mentioning the pendency of the present case and also recording that except the present case no other cases are pending against AO.

There was absolutely no intentional delay or lapse on the part of AO in utilizing the permission already granted by this Court and immediately after obtaining the permission order, AO diligently pursued the VISA and

PCC formalities before the concerned authorities. However, due to the administrative complications regarding issuance of PCC and the necessity of approaching the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana for appropriate directions, considerable time was consumed in the process, resulting in lapse of substantial portion of the permitted travel period.

Because of the above unforeseen circumstances and procedural delays before various authorities, AO has been put to considerable hardship and nearly two months of the permitted period have already elapsed. Hence, the petition.

3.Respondent/Complainant opposed the petition by filing counter contending that the Petitioner/Accused Officer is aged about 60 years and he was retired from service. He has been attending every adjournment 4

before this court and this court was pleased to issue summons to the

witnesses for trial. Since he was retired, if he goes to USA, he will stay there and will not come back to India and as the case is pending it will be very difficult for the respondent to secure his presence. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Heard arguments of both sides.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether permission to travel USA by AO can be extended up to

30.08.2026 from 30.06.2026 granted by this Court in Crl.M.P.

No.638/2025 as prayed for?

POINT:

6.Perused the record.

Along with the petition, the petitioner filed copy of the order of Hon’ble

High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition No.11843/2026 dated 29.04.2026 filed by him seeking Police Clearance Certificate to go Abroad in pursuance of the permission granted by this Court vide

Crl.M.P.No.638/2025 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to

consider his request and directed the Respondent Authorities to issue proceedings by adding no other cases are pending against the petitioner except the present case.

The order of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana categorically reflects the steps taken by the petitioner after obtaining orders from this 5

Court to go to USA and the delay if any in the case was occasioned on account of the administrative complications regarding issuance of PCC by the concerned and in obtaining the order from the Hon’ble High Court of

Telangana and no other reasons can be attributed to the petitioner.

7.This Court while allowing Crl.M.P. No.638/2025 was pleased to consider request of the petitioner to go to USA to attend his daughter’s commencement programme and in the said Crl.M.P. also when the

Respondent/Complainant took the similar plea, this Court did not accept the same and allowed the petition on merits.

8.The fact the purpose for which the permission was granted by this

Court for the petitioner to travel USA still survives is not disputed by the

Respondent/Complainant. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet ends of justice, this Court is satisfied to permit the Accused Officer to travel USA by extending the permitted period up to 30.08.2026 from 01.03.2026.

The other conditions imposed by this Court on the petitioner in

Crl.M.P. No.638/2025 remains unchanged.

Accordingly,this point is answered in favour of the

Petitioner/Accused Officer.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed.

(1) The Petitioner/Accused Officer is permitted to go to USA from 01.03.2026 to 30.08.2026 to attend his daughter’s commencement 6 program and he shall return back to India after completion of commencement program on or before 30.08.2026.

(2) He shall give undertaking that his counsel shall cooperate in the trial of the case without disputing the identity of the petitioner during the trial.

(3) He shall furnish undertaking that he will return back to India on or before 30.08.2026.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

L VENKATESWARA Digitally signed by L

VENKATESWARA RAO

RAO

Date: 2026.05.11 12:31:16 +05'30'

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.