N Santhi

.....

IN TH couRr OF

' ~ -. , 15,Ricr & sess1ONs /;~·t,.. TH(: II k Q r:::

(tt ~; . :, . . .. ~

~UDG~ ~DD1r1a~AeAL,l.e'-'

•• MA A~A

!'\o~ ·

! li~ . :: , · ·· · J • ' • , I •

\ ~-. ~-. '.. ·. . .. I Special J Present:

~~.5s11t~'~ under the ,, Udge fo Srnt- "e,,c ~~~,·:· '.--... -,

~- :< . , f oi' or -

P ri-n ~~-~ :-·~ / : (FAC) II AdOCso A.al O c~itlO iOJ1S Judge, ,_ -~ -,,, di D· ct. 5 .. ss -,,.. . rv, ISt . rictr, ,e o. "'

~

aaanapsl . Friday, the T of MaY, 2024. enth ( 101h) dSY

~I.M1::1 •. 19~

(Cr. No. 158 ~dsriaJJ'" le Taluka P.S.) of 2024 of MB a Between:

Bhanavath Malleswara N . !ILi Naik, aged about 40 years, Hindu, residin aik S/o ~ 8 (Tlakula Thanda, H/o N~ramakula Thanda ~ at Nara Mandal, Annamayaya D1sstrict. Adhar No. 3749~~napat (.A-1) 2249 .'. petitioner/ Accused No.1 .

And:

The State ?f A. p., represented bY the Station House Officer, Taluka Police Station, Madana alle .

P .. Respondent/ Complainant.

This petition came up before me on 03-05-2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri G.N.Suresh Babu, Advocate for Petitioner / Accused

No.1 and the In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this court made the following :

ORDER

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner /

Accused No.1 under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in

KB p r9lll Olito ,, A cl otu11on Mad

N 1i,B ()I ?02 96'11ons 7 (b)

onop:1110 fn, thu def H/w O (h) f Cn1110 o I ablO 1111 0 /\ p Proh1b,t10,1 oflenees pun1s , t Act 2020 An,endmen , ecu\1

pros on is th

fll1e at on 06 03 2

The case o d I D .

. 024 at 02-00

2 pare · · arrack

the petitioner I A 1 pre . st and called Santhosh Naik

M

P ., t~e in ruction

on

s Of the · · take the same. pet1t1oner / A 1 white ( A-2) to ) was tra

. ( A-2

nsporting the I .d santhosh Naik .0. arrack, police the sa1 of . 20 1~ers .D. arrack f 1 . ht him and seized rorn his possession caug arr . i,e was ested and Based on the confession, contraband was seized •udicial custody and he was remanded to l . n this connection a case 1 . ted into. was registered and invest1ga

Notice was given to the learned in-charge Additional Public 3.

Prosecutor.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner I Accused No.1 is entitled to anticipatory bail as prayed for?

6. PO INT :

The learned counsel for the petitioner/ Accused No.1 has argued that the petitioner / A 1 is a diabetic and he cannot even walk properly

8

J and he was falsely implicated . and the Petitioner / A-1 may in this case be enlarged on anticipatory b .1 ned counsel for the petitioner / a1 . The 1ear A 1 also filed some photos ala ..,pact disk regarding illness of ng With a co••· the petitioner / A 1.

7. On the other hand th rned in-charge Additional Public , e 1ea Prosecutor has opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner / A 1 is behind the entire case and the .1 . ation is pending. nvestIg

8. Perused the record as well as the Compact Disk and photos filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner / A 1. The Case

Diary reveals that basing on the ~ssion made by the

Accused No.2, tl=l~~ase was registered

against the petitioner/ A 1 ~hus as of now no material was produced regarding the participation or involvement of the petitioner / A 1 in the alleged offence. Further, the photos filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ A1 shows that he is sufferin~ lness. Hence, by taking ~ into consideration the above circumstances, this court is of the view that

the petitioner/ A 1 ~

~ nl~anticipatory bail.

&--

~

9. In the result, the petition is alloweo/\. tfu the event of arrest of Petitioner / Accused No.1, he is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand 11

e eum each

9 II~ to the satl f reties tor 1atrat a action of Principal

I ~9g

only) with two su e Of I Cla e / Judlcl9 ss, Madanapalle. Junior Civil Judg

r9P~er, transcribed b .

D. tated to stenog rt Y him, corrected and

ou , th·

Ic en C IS the 1 orcJ Unced by me in th8 oP day of May, 2024 prono ·

Sp ecial Jud N · ~ ~

ge for Sp d .

ff oce 5 llllder th

ee Y Trial of O(F~C) II Addi. Dis:.Pocso Act, Chittoor. Mad net & Sessions Judge anapalle. '

H n'ble Principal o· .

Istnct & Sessions Judge, O Copy submitted to: The

Chittoor.

J d·cial Magistrate of I c

Copy to the Prl. J.C.J I u I lass, Madanapalle,

Copy to the Station House officer, Taluka Police Station, Madanapalle.

Copy to the counsel for petitioner I A-1 on payment of usual charges.

In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge ::

Chittoor

Present: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi VIII Addl.District & Sessions Judge, FAC I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Tuesday, the 18th (Eighteenth) day of April, 2023

Crl.M.P.No. 574 of 2023

Cr.No. 53 of 2023 of Gudupalli P.S.

Between: M.Munivenkatappa, S/o Late M.Munaswamy, aged about 55 years, residing at Madhannapalli Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

.... Petitioner/A1.

And

The State rep. by the Station House Officer, Gudupalli P.S., … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 10.04.2023 for hearing before me, in the presence of Smt A.S.Saraswathy, Advocate for petitioner/A1 and of Sri D.K.Raghuram, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides and other material papers on record, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is the second application filed U/sec.439 Cr.P.C to grant regular bail to the petitioner/A1 to release him who was arrested in connection with the case in Cr.No.53/2023 of Gudupalli P.S., for the offences punishable U/secs. 80 (C) 20(B)(ii) of NDPS Act.

2. The circumstances give rise to file this application are as follows:

On 10.03.2023 at 7.30 AM near Chappidigarugulu cross on

Kuppam to Palamaner road, the Inspector of Police, Kuppam Rural

Circle in the presence of Tahsildar, Gudupalli and mediators arrested A1 who was found in possession and transportation of 10 2 kgs of Ganja supplied by A2 of Vizag for the purpose to sell at higher price and seized the contraband after lifting the sample under the cover of mahazar attested by the mediators. A1 was arrested and the mahazarnama was registered as a case in

Cr.No.53/2023 for the offences punishable under sections covered in NDPS Act and the investigation is on.

3.The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was falsely implicated in this crime and the respondent/police arrested the petitioner on 10.03.2023 and produced before the learned Judicial

Magistrate of Ist Class, Kuppam and since then he is in judicial

custody. Petitioner has not committed any offence, he was permanent abode in Madanapalle, hails from respectable family having movable and immovable properties. So far not involved in any offence and due to personal rivalry between the petitioner and his enemies at the instance of local leaders, case was foisted against him. He is suffering from old age ailments, he is an heart patient required regular medical treatment, his wife and children, so also aged parents are dependents on him and he is sole breadwinner of the family.

4.Notice is given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and memo is filed to that effect.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP.

6. The counsel for the petitioner/A1 in her arguments submitted that since 31 days the petitioner is in judicial custody. He is a patient suffering from ailments and this court can impose any condition to release him on bail.

3

7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed to allow the prayer contending that the quantity is commercial quantity, still the other prime accused who is supplier of Ganja has to be secured.

8. The point arose for determination in this petition is as follows:

Whether the petitioner/A1 can be enlarged on bail U/sec.

439 Cr.P.C in Cr.No.53/2023 of Gudupalli P.S., for the

offences punishable U/sec.80 (C) 20(B)(ii) of NDPS Act.?

9. P O I N T:

As could be seen from the material part of record and case diary the 1st accused was arrested by the Inspector of Police,

Kuppam Rural Circle in the presence of Tahsildar and mediators on 10.03.2023 when he was in possession and illegal transportation of 10 kgs of Ganja which was supplied by the 2nd accused for the purpose of sale to higher price. After lifting the sample the contraband was seized under the cover of panchanama and it was registered as Cr.No.53/2023 for the offences covered under the provisions of NDPS Act and the investigation is on.

10. The contraband seized in this case is 10 kg of Ganja which is more than the small quantity and lesser than the commercial quantity i.e., immediate quantity. As per the provisions of NDPS

Act where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than the small quantity the imprisonment may be rigorous for the terms which may extend to 10 years and fine may extend to Rs.1,00,000/-. The investigation agency wants to secure the information to arrest the supplier of the seized Ganja i.e., A2 to curb the illegal transportation and sale of Ganja, it shows pending investigation. There is a ramp up in the 4 illegal transportation of Ganja, of-late, it would have a morbid impact on the society especially college going students.

Investigation is in progress, some more wittinesses have to be examined, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, who may tamper the investigation of respondent/police and considering the contention of learned special Public Prosecutor, in view of the above reasons, nature, gravity of offence and quantity of contraband i.e., 10 kgs of Ganja, this court is of the considered view that it is not a fit stage to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, Petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of April,

2023.

VIII Additional District & Sessions

Judge,

FAC I Additional District & Sessions

Judge,

Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam Copy to: The SHO, Gudupalli P.S. Copy to the counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges.

5 // True Copy //

I/C Superintendent. VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge's Court, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -CUM- SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN:: CHITTOOR.

Present: Smt.N. Santhi

Special Judge for Trial of offences

under the POCSO Act, Chittoor, FAC VI Additional District Judge,

CHITTOOR.

Friday, this the 31st day of January, 2025.

Crl. M.P.No. 05 of 2025

(Cr.No.75/ 2024 of Kanipakam P.S.)

Between:

1.Kanchi Venkatesh Mudhiraj @ K.Venkatesulu, S/o Jayaramaiah, age 62 yeas, R/o. D.No. 6-17/1, Damaragunta village, Vadrampalli panchayathi, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

2.Kesava Ramakrishna Kanchi @ K.Kesava Ramakrishna, S/o K. Venkatesulu, age 35 years, R/o. At D.No.6-17/1, Damaragunta village, Vadrampalli panchayathi, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

…Petitioners/A.1 & A.2 And: The State of A.P., rep., by the Station House officer, Kanipakam Police Station.

...Respondent/Complainant

This petition came up on 28-01-2025 for hearing before me and upon perusing the petition, and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.G.Thrimoorthy and Sri T.K.Srinivasa Babu- Advocates

for Petitioners and of Sri T.Purushotham- Additional Public Prosecutor for

State, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 under

Section 483 of BNSS for the grant of bail in Crime No.75/2024 of Kanipakam

Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 109(1), 126(2), 351(3) 79 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

-2-

2. The case of the prosecution is in brief as follows :

On 25.12.2024 at 2.00 p.m., A.1 and A.2 quarreled with the complainant's mother and threatened her with dire consequences. On the same day at 8.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of the mother of the complainant and abused her in filthy language. On hearing the same, the complaint rushed there, and she started running away due to fear. A.1 to A.3 were chased the complainant to kill her and wrongfully restrained her. A.3 threw her down and A.1 and A.2 hacked her with knives and caused bleeding injuries. Then the villagers came there and rescued the victim from the accused. Later she was shifted to hospital for treatment. In this connection, a case was registered and investigated.

3.Notice was given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but no counter was filed.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioners/A.1 and

A.2 are entitled to bail as prayed for?

6. POINT: The learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 has argued that there is no motive to kill the defacto complainant and due to disputes between both families, this false case was foisted and during the disputes, the complainant received injuries, and a report was given. The defacto complainant was discharged on the same day from the hospital and the accused also received injuries, they never committed any offence and the petitioners may be granted bail.

7.On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented that there are disputes between both parties, so far nine witnesses have been examined and he leaves it to the discretion of the court.

Contd..p3 -3- Crl.M.P. 05 of 2025

8. Perused the record. No doubt the case diary reveals that there is a dispute regarding the pathway. But the case diary further reveals that the civil dispute turned out to be a dispute of a criminal nature. However civil disputes cannot be stretched to the extent of attacking and causing bleeding injuries to the opposite person. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused also received injuries. There is no material to show that the accused received injuries. The case diary reveals that A.1 to A.3 abused the victim woman and chased her and wrongfully restrained her. A.1 and A.2 hacked her with knives and A.3 caught hold of the tuft of the victim woman.

The case diary reveals a prima facie case against the accused, that they attacked the victim woman and caused bleeding injuries. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and that investigation is pending, I am not inclined to grant bail.

9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 31 st day of January, 2025.

Sd/- N.Santhi,

Special Judge for Trial of offences

under the POCSO Act, Chittoor, FAC VI Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to the IV Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor. Copy to the Station House Officer, Kanipakam Police Station. Copy to the counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE

-cum- SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN

CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR.

Present:-Smt. N.Santhi,

Special Judge for the trial of offences

under the POCSO Act, Chittoor, FAC / VI Additional District Judge -cum- Special

Judge for the trial of offences against women,

Chittoor.

Friday, this the 07th day of February, 2025.

Crl. M.P. No.60 of 2025

Cr. No.580/2024 of East P.S., Tirupati. BETWEEN:

1. Smt. Gundlakatam Bujji @ Bujjamma, W/o. G.Bhaskar, aged 47 years, R/o. Veerlagudipalli, Vavilthota post, Puthalapattu mandal, Chittoor district. Now residing at D.No.18-1-808, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati Town and Mandal, Tirupati District.

2. Eddula Saradha, W/o. Late E.Sankaraiah, aged 45 years, N/o. Nagolu village, Dakkili Mandal, Nellore District. Now residing at D.No.18-1-808, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati Town and Mandal, Tirupati District. ….Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 A N D: The State, rep., by the Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Tirupati. …. Respondent/Complainant

This petition came up on 05.02.2025 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri V.Murugan, Advocate for petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and of Sri T.Purushotham, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ complainant, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and other material papers on record, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 under Section 483 of BNSS for the grant of bail in Crime No.580 of 2024 of

East Police Station, Tirupati for the offences punishable under Sections 143(2), 144(2) BNS and Sec.3(1), 4(1), 5(1) and 7(1) of Immoral Traffic

Prevention Act, 1956.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 15.12.2024 at 10.00 a.m., during the raids conducted by the

Inspector of police, East Police Station, Tirupati, he found that A.1 and A.2 being the tenants of the house, procuring the victim woman to organize a brothel house and encouraged A.3 to have sexual intercourse with the victim. The Inspector of Police arrested A.1 to A.3 and seized cash of

Rs.1,000/- under cover of mahazarnama. In this connection, a case was registered and investigated.

3.Notice was given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but no counter was filed.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 are entitled to bail as prayed for?

6. POINT:

The learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 argued that petitioners are ladies and since 15.12.2024 they are in judicial custody and this is 3rd application and petitioners may be granted bail.

7.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented that he leaves it to the discretion of the court.

8. Perused the record. The case diary reveals that being the ladies the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are organizing the prostitution and running brothel house and living on the earnings of the prostitution. The case diary reveals prima facie case against the accused. However the case diary further reveals that material part of investigation is completed.

Contd...p.3 -3- Crl.M.P. No. 60 of 2025

As such the question of tampering with the witnesses does not arise.

Hence, this court is of the view that the petitioners can be granted bail.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 are ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 07 th day of January 2025.

Sd/- N.Santhi,

Special Judge for Trial of offences

under the POCSO Act, Chittoor. FAC/ VI Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Chittoor. Copies to:

1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati,

2. The Station House officer, East Police Station, Tirupati,

3. The counsel for Petitioner, on payment of usual charges.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

-cum- SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

CHITTOOR

Present: N. Santhi

Special Judge for Trial of offences

under the POCSO Act, Chittoor. FAC VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the 05th day of February, 2025.

Crl. M.P.No. 44 of 2025

(Cr. No.09 of 2025 of Vedurukuppam P.S

Between: M.Kumar, S/o. Sivanarayana, age 28 years, R/o. Mambedu village and post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

And: The State rep. by Station House Officer, Vedurukuppam Police Station.

... Respondent/ Complainant

This petition came up on 03.02.2025 before me for hearing perusing the petition and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Rajesh and Sir K.Praveen- Advocates for petitioner and Sri T.Purushotham- Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.1 under

Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail in Crime No.09 of 2025 of

Vedurukuppam Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 109(1), 79 r/w 3(5) BNS.

2

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 17.01.2025 at 7.30 p.m., the accused keeping previous grudges in mind with an intention to kill the defacto complainant, A.1 attacked the victim with knife and stabbed on the left side of her breast and when she tried to escape from stabbing, caused bleeding injuries on her breast. A.2 to A.6 abused her in filthy language. In this connection, a case was registered and investigated.

3. Notice was given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but no counter was filed.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner/ Accused

No.1 is entitled to bail as prayed for?

6. POINT:

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, accused never committed any offence and there is case and counter case and there is variation in confession mahazar of both cases and since 90 days the petitioner is in judicial custody, investigation is completed and charge sheet also filed and the petitioner may be granted bail.

7.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of bail on the ground that typographical mistakes have been crept in mahazar and admittedly cases have been filed and investigation is completed and charge sheet filed.

3

8.Perused the record. This is not the stage to go deep and discuss about discrepancies occurred regarding timings in the mahazars. The case diary reveals prima facie case against accused. The case diary further reveals that entire investigation is completed and charge sheet filed. As such the question of tampering with the witnesses does not arise. Hence, this court is of the view that the petitioner/A.1 can be granted bail.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Sd/- N.Santhi,

Special Judge for Trial of offences

under the POCSO Act, Chittoor. FAC/ VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences against Women,

Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to: The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, The Station House officer, Kuppam Urban Police station The counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges. The Jail authorities through e-mail.