Smt.N.Santhi

Dt.30.04.2026 (Fair)

Crl.M.P.No.142 of 2026

(Cr.No.21 of 2026 of Kadapa II Town U/G P.S.) 1

APKD000023462026

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt. N. Santhi,

VI. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Crl. M.P. No.142 of 2026

(Cr.No.21 of 2026 of Kadapa II Town U/G P.S.)

Between:

1. Shaik Mansoor, Aged 28 years, Son of Shaik Gayas Basha, Residing at D.No.18/331, KNB Street, Kadapa city and District. (A.2)

2. Shaik Zabiulla, Aged 26 years, Son of Shaik Gayas Basha, Residing at D.No.18/331, KNB Street, Kadapa city and District. (A.3)

3. Shaik Maksood @ Maqsood, Son of Shaik Gayaz Basha, Aged 30 years, Residing at D.No.18/331, KNB ….Petitioners/ Street, Kadapa city and District. (A.4) A.2 to A.4.

And:

The State represented by the Station House Officer,

Kadapa II town U/G Police Station....Respondent/

Complainant.

This petition came up before me on 22.04.2025 for hearing, and on perusing the petition and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.Reddaiah, Advocate for petitioners / accused No.2 to 4 and of Smt N.Khadiroon, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:

Dt.30.04.2026 (Fair)

Crl.M.P.No.142 of 2026

(Cr.No.21 of 2026 of Kadapa II Town U/G P.S.) 2

O R D E R

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners / A.2 to A.4 under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in

Crime No.21 / 2026 of Kadapa II Town U/G Police Station, for the offence under Section 115 (2), 118 (1), 351 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:On 30.12.2025 due to the differences with the complainant, keeping the same in the mind, the accused quarreled with the complainant due to silly reasons. The accused and others picked up quarrel, abused and beat the complainant, his brothers and his uncle with an iron rod and caused swelling and dumb injuries. In this connection, a case was registered and investigated.

3. Notice was given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposed for grant of bail, but reported no counter.

4. Heard arguments on both sides.

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

No.2 to 4 are entitled to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for ?

6. POINT: The learned counsel for petitioners argued that originally the case was registered for the offence under section 115 (2) of IPC and later, on receipt of wound certificate, the section of law was altered to section 115 (2), 118 (1), 118 (2), 351 (2) of B.N.S.. The accused never committed any offence and the material part of investigation is completed, except filing of charge- sheet. He further argued that as the offences are bailable in nature, the petitioners were released on bail and now after adding sections which are non-bailable in nature, as such, the petitioners are apprehending the arrest and the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.

Dt.30.04.2026 (Fair)

Crl.M.P.No.142 of 2026

(Cr.No.21 of 2026 of Kadapa II Town U/G P.S.) 3

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of bail on the ground that investigation is pending.

8. Perused the case record. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were released on bail for bailable offence and now after adding sections which are non-bailable in nature, the police are trying to apprehend the arrest. In support of his arguments, he relied upon a citation between Duddakunta Deepak Reddy and others, Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, reported in 2025 (3) ALD (Crl.) 359 (AP), wherein their Lordships held that “Pre-arrest bail sought by petitioners apprehending of arrest in view of adding of S.118 (2) of BNS, cannot be denied on ground of accused being already on bail for some sections in same crime umber, as threat of arrest in respect of newly added section, (which is non-bailable) staring against petitioners and it is no case of prosecution that they have moved application for cancellation of bail and they are not going to arrest petitioners.”

The facts of the above case relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners and the facts of the present case are similar. In the present case also, the petitioners were released on bail when the case was registered for the offences which are bailable in nature and later, the sections were added which are non-bailable in nature. As such, the petitioners are apprehending arrest. Since the petitioners were already granted bail in view of the law laid down in the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, this

Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners / A.2 to A.4 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest on their executing a

Dt.30.04.2026 (Fair)

Crl.M.P.No.142 of 2026

(Cr.No.21 of 2026 of Kadapa II Town U/G P.S.) 4 bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties for like-sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Kadapa II

Town U/G P.S..

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

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- N.Santhi.

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Copy to the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kadapa.

Copy to the S.H.O., Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station.

Copy to the Sri D.Reddaiah, Advocate for Petitioners / A.2 to A.4.

Crl.M.P.No. 166 of 2026 1

Cr.No.107/2025 of Lakkireddipalli P.S I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa dt.19.05.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Present:- Sri G.S. Ramesh Kumar,

Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences

against Women-cum-

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa .

I/c I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa

Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No.166 of 2026

in Cr.No.107 of 2025 of Lakkireddipalli Police Station.

S.Balu, Aged 20 years, Son of Yallappa, Caste by Dasari, Occupation – Coolie, Residing at Kollafaram colony, Nimmanpalli town and mandal (having no identity).

… Petitioner / Accused No.2.

Vs.

State : S.H.O., Lakkireddipalli Police Station.

... Respondent/Complainant.

This petition coming on 12.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt M.Chandrakanthamma, Advocate for the Petitioner / Accused No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on behalf Respondent / Complainant, having heard on both sides, having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

This is a bail application filed under Sec.483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on behalf of the Petitioner / Accused No.2 to release him on bail involved in the above case in Cr.No.107/2025 of

Lakkireddipalli Police station for the offence punishable under Sec.303 (2) of B.N.S. and section 136 of Indian Electricity Act.

Crl.M.P.No. 166 of 2026 2

Cr.No.107/2025 of Lakkireddipalli P.S I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa dt.19.05.2026.

2. The brief grounds sought for grant of bail :- “The Petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case and he never involved in the alleged offence as alleged by the complainant. The police have willfully initiated the name of the petitioner for close the case. The entire investigation is completed, except to filing of charge-sheet and the petitioner is ready to furnish reasonable sureties and hence prayed to release the Petitioner on bail.”

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that:- “In between 02.11.2025 at 6.00 p.m., to 03.11.2025 at 6.00 a.m., near GMR Colony, Lakkireddipalli mandal and Opposite to

Maddirevula electrical sub-station, Appalarajugaripalli, H/o.

Maddirevula village, Lakkireddipalli, wherein A.1 to A.3 entered the fields of Chitraju Subbaramaraju and P.Venkatesh and committed theft of copper wire by breaking one 16 KVA three-phase DTR and 25 KVA three-phase DTR, all worth about Rs.50,000/-, thereby disrupting the power supply. Basing on the complaint of Samala Harinath, case was registered in Cr.No.107/2025 of Lakkireddipalli P.S. for the offence under Sec.303 (2) of B.N.S. and section 136 (1) (a) Indian Electricity

Act and later on 01.12.2025, the accused was arrested and produced him before this court for remand.”

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after receiving notice, opposed for grant of bail.

5.Heard on both sides.

Crl.M.P.No. 166 of 2026 3

Cr.No.107/2025 of Lakkireddipalli P.S I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa dt.19.05.2026.

6.Now the point for consideration is :-“Whether this bail

application be allowed to release the Petitioner/ Accused

No.1 on bail or not?

POINT:-

7. Heard. Perused the records.

1) The case registered in Cr.No.107/2025 of Lakkireddipalli Police

Station on 03.11.2025.

2) Lakkireddipalli Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh

State.

3) The offences are u/sec. 303 (2) of B.N.S. and section 136(1)(a)

Indian Electricity Act.

4) The prescribed punishment for the offence under Sec.303 (2) of

B.N.S. is “whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both and in case of second or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine.”

5) The prescribed punishment for the offence under Sec.136(1)(a)

Indian Electricity Act is “ 3 years of imprisonment,or fine, or both”.

6) Date of arrest: 01.12.2025

6) Period of custody : 169 days

7) Stage of proceedings: Investigation is completed. Charge sheet is also filed.

Crl.M.P.No. 166 of 2026 4

Cr.No.107/2025 of Lakkireddipalli P.S I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa dt.19.05.2026.

7. The learned Addl. Public prosecutor opposed the bail application. On perusal of the case dairy, the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed. The petitioner / accused

No.2 is in judicial custody since 169 days. Under the above circumstances, bail granted to the Petitioner/A.2.

8. In the result, this Bail application is allowed and

thereby the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is ordered to be released

if he is not required in any other cases, on execution of bond

for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties

for the likesum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddipalli.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.S. Ramesh Kumar

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. I/c I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Copy to:

1) The S.H.O., Lakkireddipalli P.S.

2) The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddipalli.

3) The learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Crl.M.P.No. 192 of 2026 1

Cr.No.19/2026 of Kalasapadu P.S I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa dt.19.05.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Present:- Sri G.S. Ramesh Kumar,

Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences

against Women-cum-

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa .

I/c I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa

Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No.192 of 2026

in Cr.No.19 of 2026 of Kalasapadu Police Station.

Yambadi Yesaiah, Son of Kashaiah @ Kaasaiah, Aged about 53 years, SC-Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Pullareddypalli, SC-Colony, Kalasapadu Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

… Petitioner / Accused.

Vs.

State : S.H.O., Kalasapadu Police Station.

… Respondent/Complainant.

This petition coming on 12.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri I.Jaya Raju, Advocate for the Petitioner / Accused and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on behalf Respondent /

Complainant, having heard on both sides, having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

This is a bail application filed under Sec.483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on behalf of the Petitioner / Accused to release him on bail involved in the above case in Cr.No.19/2026 of

Kalasapadu Police station for the offences punishable under Sec.105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Crl.M.P.No. 192 of 2026 2

Cr.No.19/2026 of Kalasapadu P.S I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa dt.19.05.2026.

2. The brief grounds sought for grant of bail :- “The Petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case, based on the report given by one Palakolanu Sadasiva Reddy, village Panchayat Secretary, Rajupalem village, Kalasapadu Mandal.

The entire report of panchayat secretary revealed that there is no any eye witness and none were came forward to give report to the police including the family members of the deceased. The report revealed that the deceased Shyamala has been suffering with mental disorder and behaved with the petitioner. There is no postmortem report on the deceased. Due to mental disorder, the deceased herself hit her head to cement wall, resulting which she succumbed to the injuries.

The petitioner having a minor girl and aged mother and he is only bread winner of his family. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court for his release on bail and hence prayed to release the Petitioner on bail.”

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that:- “On 03.4.2026 at about 10.00 p.m., in the house of deceased at

Pullareddypalle, Kalasapadu mandal, wherein the accused came to his house on 03.4.2026 at 10.00 p.m., from the coolie work in drunken stage and asked the deceased who is his wife, about the food, but the deceased did not give proper response, on that the accused suddenly grew wild and beat the deceased with a stick. Due to which, the deceased sustained bruise injuries over her body and due to the said injuries, she was succumbed. This was occurred due to the accused vexed with the behaviour of the deceased, as she was suffering with mental ill-health and behaving annoyingly. Basing on the same, case was registered in Cr.No.19/2026 of Kalasapadu P.S. for the offence under Sec.105 of BNS and later on 13.04.2026, the accused was

Crl.M.P.No. 192 of 2026 3

Cr.No.19/2026 of Kalasapadu P.S I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa dt.19.05.2026.

arrested and produced him before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Badvel for remand.”

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after receiving notice, opposed for grant of bail.

5.Heard on both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is :-

“Whether this bail application be allowed to release the

Petitioner/ Accused No.1 on bail or not?

POINT:-

7. Perused the records.

1) The case registered in Cr.No.19/2026 of Kalasapadu Police Station on 06.04.2026.

2) Kalasapadu Police Station, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa District,

Andhra Pradesh State.

3) The offence is u/sec.105of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

4) The prescribed punishment for the offence under Sec.105 of B.N.S.

is “ imprisonment for life,or fine, or both”.

5) Date of arrest: 13.04.2026

6) Period of custody : 37 days

7) Stage of proceedings: Investigation is pending for want of RFSL report.

Crl.M.P.No. 192 of 2026 4

Cr.No.19/2026 of Kalasapadu P.S I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa dt.19.05.2026.

7. The learned Additional Public prosecutor opposed the bail application, as it is a first bail application and the accused is in judicial custody since 37 days. The material part of investigation is not yet completed. Hence, the petitioner/Accused is not entitled for bail at this stage.

8. In the result, this Bail application is dismissed.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G.S. Ramesh Kumar

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. I/c I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

(Fair) Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2026 (Cr.No.32 of 2026 of Pulivendula U/G PS) 1

APKD000024112026

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt.N. Santhi,

VI. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of April, 2026

Crl. M.P. No.156 of 2026

(Cr.No.32 of 2026 of Pulivendula U/G P.S.)

Between:

Arkatavemula Hani Babu @ Yogi Babu, Son of Ravi, Aged 19 years, Hindu, Resident of Christian Line, ….Petitioner/ Pulivendula town, YSR Kadapa District. Accused No.2. And:

The State represented by the Station House Officer,

...Respondent/

Pulivendula U/G Police Station. Complainant.

This petition came up before me on 24.04.2026 and upon perusing the petition and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner / accused No.2 and of Smt

N.Khadiroon, 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 a bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner /Accused No.2 under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to grant of bail in Crime No.32 / 2026 of

Pulivendula U/G Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 126 (2), 109 r/w.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

(Fair) Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2026 (Cr.No.32 of 2026 of Pulivendula U/G PS) 2

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 17.02.2026 at 7.30 p.m., A.1 accompanied by A.2 and A.3 wrongful restrained the complainant Palagiri Deva Kumar, while he was proceeding towards his relatives house along with his brother-in-law on a motorcycle. A.1 to A.3 attacked on the complainant with sickle, sticks and rods respectively with an intention to kill him, thereby caused injuries over his person. The complainant was managed to ran away and escaped from the hands of the accused. The motive of the said attack is that a petty quarrel was occurred in between the complainant and the accused on the day of Good Friday festival and previous ill-feelings. In this connection, a case was registered and investigated into.

During the course of investigation on 19.02.2026 A.3 was arrested and based on his confession, he was forwarded to judicial remand. A.1 and A.2 are still absconding.

3. Notice was given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposed for grant of bail. But reported no counter.

4. Heard both sides.

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

No.2 is entitled to grant of regular bail as prayed for ?

6. POINT: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the overtacts were attributed to A.1 only and so far section 307 of IPC concerned, no intention or no motive was projected and the case falls at best under section 324 of IPC which is punishable below seven years and the investigation is completed and the petitioner may be granted bail.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is pending.

(Fair) Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2026 (Cr.No.32 of 2026 of Pulivendula U/G PS) 3

8. Perused the record. The case diary reveals that A.1 to A.3 who were waiting for arrival of complainant, when he arrived, attacked him with sickle, rods and sticks and caused bleeding injuries. As seen from the report, specific overtacts were attributed to the petitioner also. Thus, the case diary reveals the prima-facie case against the petitioner. However, taking into consideration that material part of investigation is completed and the petitioner has been in judicial custody since more than one month, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to condition.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner / accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for like-sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pulivendula. Further on such release, the petitioner / A.2 is directed to appear before the Station

House Officer, Pulivendula U/G P.S., on every Tuesday, Thursday and

Saturday between 12.00 noon and 02.00 p.m. for a period of 60 days or until charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier. The Station House Officer,

Pulivendula, shall report compliance.

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

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- N.Santhi.

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Pulivendula.

Copy to the S.H.O., Pulivendula U/G Police Station.

Copy to the Sri M.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner / A.2.

Dt.28.04.2026 (Fair)

Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2026

(Cr.No.289 of 2025 of Mannur U/G P.S.) 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt.N. Santhi,

VI. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. FAC., I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Tuesday, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Crl.M.P. No.136 of 2026

(Cr.No.289 of 2025 of Mannur U/G P.S. )

Between:

Pidugu Ajay, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 24 years, Caste by Balija, Occ: Electrician, R/o Lakshmapuram, Boyanapalli Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa….Petitioner/ District. (A7) A.7.

And:

The State : S.H.O., Mannur U/G Police station. … Respondent/ Complainant.

This petition came up before me on 22.04.2026 and upon perusing the petition and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Bharath Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner / A.7 and of

Smt. N. Khadiroon, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner/A.7 under

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (U/Sec.439 of

Dt.28.04.2026 (Fair)

Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2026

(Cr.No.289 of 2025 of Mannur U/G P.S.) 2

Cr.P.C), for grant of bail in Crime No.289 of 2025 of Mannur U/G P.S., for the offence under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (c) r/w Section 8 (c) of N.D.P.S. Act.

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

On 24.12.2025 at 12.45 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Mannur U/G P.S., found A.1 to A.8 were in possession and illegal transportation of Ganja (Cannabis) and the accused No.8 was found absconding who is dhaba owner of A.1 Choudary family dhaba, procured Ganja from unknown sources. On that the Inspector of Police, arrested A.1 to A.7 and seized 9.5 kgs of Ganja, six mobile phones and cash of Rs.3,000/- from their possession under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators. In this connection, a case was registered and investigated.

3. Notice was given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposed for grant of bail, but reported no counter.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner / A.7 is entitled to grant of regular bail as prayed for” ?

6. POINT: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, the petitioner is an innocent and he is remanded to judicial custody on 25.12.2025 and since morethan 80 days he has been in judicial custody and investigation is completed and petitioner may be granted bail.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of bail on the ground that investigation is pending.

Dt.28.04.2026 (Fair)

Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2026

(Cr.No.289 of 2025 of Mannur U/G P.S.) 3

8. Perused the case record. The case diary reveals that when the

Inspector of Police, conducted raid at the lay-by near old M.V.I. Office,

Boyanapalli village, Rajampeta mandal, he found A.1 to A.7 were in possession and illegal transportation of 9.5 kgs of Ganja (Cannabis). The case diary reveals prima face case against the petitioner. However, the case diary further reveals that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.12.2025 i.e. more than 90 days and material part of the investigation is completed. As such, the question of tampering with the witnesses does not arise. Hence, taking into consideration of the same, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to condition.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner / A.7 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand Only) with two sureties for like-sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajampeta.

Further, on such release, the petitioner / A.7 is directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Mannur U/G P.S., on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., for a period of 60 days or until charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier. Station House Officer directed to verify compliance.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Santhi,

Sd/- N. Santhi

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, FAC., I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajampeta.

Copy to the Station House Officer, Mannur U/G P.S.

Copy to Sri P. Bharath Kumar Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner.