Smt.P.Sri Satya Devi

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NARSAPUR

Present: Smt. P.Sri Satya Devi, III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, I/c. X Additional Sessions Judge, Narsapur.

Friday, the 7th day of July, 2023

Crl.M.P.No.243/2023

(Crime No.72/2023 of Mogaltur Police Station)

Between:

1.Katam Sundar Babu, S/o Chittibabu, 31 Years, Hindu,Male, D.No.5- 84, Katamvari Thota, Jettipalem, Ramannapalem Panchayat, Mogaltur Mandal, W.G. District.

2.Katam Prudhvi Raju, S/o Mohanbabu, 22 Years, Hindu, Male, D.No.5-84, Katamvari Thota, Jettipalem, Ramannapalem Panchayat, Mogaltur Mandal, W.G. District.

...Petitioners/A-1 and A-2

And

State- S.H.O., Mogaltur Police Station, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Narsapur

...Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come before me for final hearing on 6-7-2023 in the presence of Sri N.Ananda Chakravarthi,Advocate for the

Petitioners and Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Upon perusing the material on record and on hearing the arguments and having considered the matter, this Court delivers the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. Petition filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in Crime No.72/2023 of Mogaltur Police Station registered under Section 324, 384 r/w 34 IPC, seeking pre arrest bail as there is every apprehension for their arrest at any moment, though they have not committed any offence.

2

2. As per the report of defacto complainant, on 25.2.2023 at about 11.30 PM, petitioner/A.1 beat him with iron rod when he was talking in cell phone near water pond, Katamvari Thota, Jettipalem,

Ramannapalem Village, Mogaltur Mandal and when he was trying to save himself by leaving that place, petitioner/A.2 caught him not to escape from the blow of petitioner/A.1 and both the accused extorted 4 sovereigns of gold chain, HTC Mobile phone, worth of Rs.65,000/- and escaped with that booty.

3. On receipt of notice, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the C.D file showing the progress of the investigation in Crime

No.72/2023 and fairly conceded that the entire investigation was completed and the final report is going to be filed as and when the wound certificate of the injured received from the Medical Officer. He further submitted that though initially the crime was registered under

Section 324 and 384 r/w 34 IPC, the investigation disclosed that the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are grievous in nature.

Hence, they have filed a Memo for alteration of the section of law from 324, 384 r/w 34 IPC to 326, 323, 384 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, by considering these facts, the petition can be disposed off.

4. The learned petitioners counsel argued that though the entire investigation was completed, the investigation agency wants to keep the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 behind the bars. He further argued that the report given by the defacto complainant shows that he was allegedly beaten by petitioner/A.1 with an iron rod on his backside, but there is no whisper in the prima facie material placed by the 3 investigation agency about any injury on the backside of the head of defacto complainant. He further argued that the sequence regarding narration of injuries are doubtful even compared with the wound certificate filed by the investigation officer regarding injuries received by defacto complainant. He further argued that the petitioners believe that at the instance of 1st petitioner’s wife, present report was given with false averments, on account of strained relationship between the couple, even though the petitioners have not committed any offence.

He further argued that it is a fit case to grand pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, considering these facts.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The point that emerges for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 are entitled

for pre-arrest bail as prayed by them, or not?

7.P O I N T:- Having perusal of the material record, this Court verified and found that Crime No.72/2023 was registered on 26.2.2023. Except the allegation in the report of defacto complainant, there is no prima facie material to show the existing rivalry or disputes between him and the petitioners. The enclosures of the memo filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prima facie goes to show that on 29.5.2023, wound certificate of the injured was issued by Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Narsapur, upon examining the injured on 26.2.2023. The observations in the wound certificate shows the swelling on the scalp and right side of the face and unable to open the mouth and case was referred to C.T. Facial 4

Scan. Upon receipt of the report, he opined that the injuries sustained by injured are grievous in nature. Hence, the Section of Law was altered to 326 IPC.

8. As fairly conceded by the learned APP, the material witnesses were already examined and material object was collected and wound certificate of the injured was received by the investigation agency.

There is no clear apprehension reported by the defacto complainant that he has a life threat from the petitioners/accused. Pre-arrest bail is an important legal provision that safeguards the fundamental rights of the individuals, especially protection of life and personal liberty as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution. Upon considering the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the stage of the investigation, this court is of the opinion that the arrest of the accused is not at all required to file a final report before the court concerned, as the entire investigation was completed. There is no reason explained by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for not filing the final report till today even though, the wound certificate of the injured was issued on 29.5.2023. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioners about their possible arrest to keep them behind the bars without any necessity for progress of the investigation of the crime, can be accepted. It is not the argument of the learned A.P.P that the petitioners/Accused are not cooperated for investigation and tried to escape from the clutches of law. Hence, this court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners with the following conditions.

Accordingly this point is answered.

5

9. In the result, petition is allowed and the petitioners/A.1 and

A.2 are directed to Surrender before the Court of I Additional Junior

Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur

and upon their surrender on or before 12.07.2023, immediately they are ordered to be released on execution of self bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concern.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade.I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7 th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- P.Sri Satya Devi,

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHIMAVARAM.

I/c. X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARSAPUR.

Copy to:

1.The I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Court, Narsapur.

2.The Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused.

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NARSAPUR

Present: Smt. P.Sri Satya Devi, III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, I/c. X Additional Sessions Judge, Narsapur.

Friday, the 14th day of July, 2023

Crl.M.P.No.238/2023

(Crime No.31/2023 of Narsapur Town Police Station)

Between:

Gavani Vasundhara, W/o Harisankar @ Kota Raja Sekhar, Hindu, Female, 44 Years, R/o Flat No.404, Sivam Enclave, Sultanabad, Tenali, Guntur District.

...Petitioner/A-6

And

State- S.H.O., Narsapur Town Police Station, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Narsapur

...Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come before me for final hearing on 13-7-2023 in the presence of Sri U.Satyanarayana,Advocate for the Petitioner and Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Upon perusing the material on record and on hearing the arguments and having considered the matter, this Court delivers the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. Petition filed by the petitioner/A-6 under Section 439 Cr.P.C to enlarge him on bail.

2. The prosecution allegations against the petitioner are, on 3.2.2023 counterfeit currency of Rs.20,000/- was deposited into the

Account No.919010036028791 in the name of Kollepara Pavan Kumar by the A.1. The complainant confirmed them as counterfeit currency notes and handed over counterfeit notes to Police and he gave report 2 for taking necessary action on 7.2.2023. Basing on the report of defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.31/2023 was registered under

Sections 420, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C r/w 34 I.P.C.

3. On receipt of notice, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the case dairy and reported that investigation is not yet completed.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner/A-6 is entitled to be

enlarged on bail as prayed by him?

6.P O I N T:- Having perusal of the material record, this Court noticed that petitioner/A.6 has been in judicial remand since 22.6.2023. On receipt of notice, the learned APP submitted the C.D file and opposed to grant bail to the petitioner/A.6, as the investigation is still pending due to non-apprehension of A.5, who is no other than husband of petitioner/A.6. The learned petitioner counsel filed a Memo along with copy of the order in H.M.O.P.22/2022 passed by the

Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali on 6.4.2022, as the

petitioner/A.6 obtained divorce from A.5 through Court of Law. The learned APP denied the contention of petitioner/A.6 counsel and submitted that A.5 and petitioner/A.6 are residing together. Except such protest, there is no other prima facie proof of evidence filed by the prosecution to show that A.5 and petitioner/A.6 are still leading conjugal life. The record further reveals that A.1 to A.4 were already arrested and they were enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the 3 petitioner/A.6 need not be behind the bars for want of securing the presence of A.5. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/A.6 on bail with the same conditions imposed by this Court while enlarging the A.1 to A.4. Accordingly this point is answered.

7. In the result, petition is allowed by enlarging the petitioner/A.6 on bail on execution of bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional

Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate,

Narsapur, further subject to the conditions that,

(a)The petitioner/A.6 shall provide her contact number to the respondent/Police and ensure that she is reachable on it at all times.

(b)The petitioner/A.6 shall provide her residential address and gave prior intimation to the concerned Investigation Officer, if there is any change in the same.

(c)The petitioner/A.6 shall ensure that she shall attend all hearings held during the period she is on bail.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade.I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14 th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- P.Sri Satya Devi,

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHIMAVARAM.

I/c. X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARSAPUR.

Copy to:

1.The I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Narsapur.

2.The Advocate for the Petitioner/A-6.

3.The S.H.O. Narsapur Town Police Station.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IIADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. P.Sri Satya Devi

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

Friday, this the 08 th day of May, 2015

ORIGINAL SUIT No.339/2009

Between:

Mutta Balaramurthy, Hindu, Male, Age 40 years, Proprietor of Jai Hanuman Past food center, Nanayanapuram, Unguturu Mandal.

.... Plaintiff

AND

1) Peddireddy Appalaraju, Hindu, Male, Age 50 years, Narayanapuram, Unguturu Mandal.

2) Yalla Durgarao, Hindu, Male, Age 44 years, Narayanapuram, Unguturu Mandal.

3) Goli Srinivasarao, Hindu, Male, Age 46 years, Narayanapuram, Unguturu Mandal.

4) Mullapudi Chinni, Male, Age 43 years, Narayanapuram, Unguturu Mandal.

….. Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day in the presence of

Sri Maka Srinivasa Rao,Advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri M.Raghuram, Advocate for the D1, D2 and D4 and Sri G.Dwarakanadh, Advocate for D3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

No representation for plaintiff and trial not commenced in spite of conditional order. Hence suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me, this the 08th day of May, 2015.

Sd/ P.Sri Satya Devi

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

II ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

No oral or documentary evidence or adduced on either side.

Id/P.S.S.D II A.J.C.J/ TPG.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IIADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Sri N.Sreenivasa Rao

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2015

ORIGINAL SUIT No.87/2009

BETWEEN:

Andal Raghavan, age 63 years, female, Hindu, Veera Raghavan Bhavan, 18th ward, Tallamudunurupadu, Tadepalligudem.

.... Plaintiff

AND 1.Dandu Ganga Raju

2. Manthena Anuradha

3. Indukuri Ramana Kumari

4. Dandu Srinivasa Raju 5.Goluguri Sukhanya 6.Karri Venkata Reddy 7.Satti Syamala 8.Satti Jagan Mohan Reddy

9. Gudimetla Dhana Laxmi 10.Kovvuri Venu Gopala Reddy

11. Gudimetla Venugopala Reddy

12.Satti Nagamani .. Defendants

This suit is coming on this day in the presence of Sri. Vinjamuri Venkateswarlu, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.M.V.R.K. Manohar, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

No representation for plaintiff and trial not commenced inspite of conditional order. Hence suit dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

Sd/N.Sreenivasa Rao

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

II ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

No oral or documentary evidence or adduced on either side.

Id/N.S II A.J.C.J./ TPG.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IIADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Sri N.Sreenivasa Rao

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2015

ORIGINAL SUIT No.87/2009

BETWEEN:

Andal Raghavan, age 63 years, female, Hindu, Veera Raghavan Bhavan, 18th ward, Tallamudunurupadu, Tadepalligudem.

.... Plaintiff

AND 1.Dandu Ganga Raju

2. Manthena Anuradha

3. Indukuri Ramana Kumari

4. Dandu Srinivasa Raju 5.Goluguri Sukhanya 6.Karri Venkata Reddy 7.Satti Syamala 8.Satti Jagan Mohan Reddy

9. Gudimetla Dhana Laxmi 10.Kovvuri Venu Gopala Reddy

11. Gudimetla Venugopala Reddy

12.Satti Nagamani .. Defendants

This suit is coming on this day in the presence of Sri. Vinjamuri Venkateswarlu, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.M.V.R.K. Manohar, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

No representation for plaintiff and trial not commenced inspite of conditional order. Hence suit dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

Sd/N.Sreenivasa Rao

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

II ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

No oral or documentary evidence or adduced on either side.

Id/N.S II A.J.C.J./ TPG.