Smt. Pandiri Laltiha

A.S.No.277/20071II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026 APPR000001302007

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE.

PRESENT : Smt.P.Lalitha,

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE CUM SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OF-

FENCES AGAINST WOMEN, PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Appeal Suit No. 277of 2007

Between:

1. Maddu Sundaramma, W/o late Yenoku, aged 74 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Audipudi village, Karmachedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Meka Suvarthamma, W/o late Aseervadam, aged 49 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Punur villalge, Yaddanapdu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Peddapalli Vijayakumari, W/o Vishnu Murthy, aged 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Edurapalli village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Maddu Deva Manemma, D/o late Yenoku, aged 39 years, Hindu, Nurse, R/o Kakinada Town, East Godavari District. … Appellant/Plaintiffs 2 to 5.

AND

1. Maddu Samyulu, Alias Samuel, S/o late Veeraiah, aged about 57 years,

2. Maddu Poul, S/o Samyulu @ Samuel, aged about 34 years,

3. Maddu Yacob @ Ramaiah, S/o Samyulu Alias Samuel, aged about 31 years,

All are Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Audipudi village, Karamchedul Mandal, Prakasam District. … Respondent/ (Defendants 1 to 3)

APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS. 2 TO 5)

UNDER ORDER 41, RULE 1 AND SECTION 96 C.P.C. AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.01.05.2007 IN O.S.NO. 28/2001 ON THE FILE

OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, PARCHURU.

Between:

1. Moddu Yenoku (Died)

A.S.No.277/20072II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026

2. Maddu Sundaramma, W/o late Yenoku, aged 74 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Audipudi village, Karmachedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Meka Suvarthamma, W/o late Aseervadam, aged 49 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Punur villalge, Yaddanapdu Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Peddapalli Vijayakumari, W/o Vishnu Murthy, aged 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Edurapalli village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. Maddu Deva Manemma, D/o late Yenoku, aged 39 years, Hindu, Nurse, R/o Kakinada Town, East Godavari District. …. Plaintiffs

AND

1. Maddu Samyulu, Alias Samuel, S/o late Veeraiah, aged about 57 years,

2. Maddu Poul, S/o Samyulu @ Samuel, aged about 34 years,

3. Maddu Yacob @ Ramaiah, S/o Samyulu Alias Samuel, aged about 31 years,

All are Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Audipudi village, Karamchedul Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Defendants

This Appeal is coming on 24.04.2026 for Judgment before me and of Sri. S. Sivaramakrishna Prasad and Smt.Ch.Nagendram Learned Advocates for Appellants/Plaintiffs 2 to 5 and of Sri Chunduri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for R1, and the 2nd respondent remained exparte and of Sri.Ch.Chaitanya learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1. The Appellants/ Plaintiffs 2 to 5 filed this appeal against the respondents/Defendants 1 to 3 as against the decree and judgment,

dated:101.05.2007 in O.S. No.28/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur

seeking allow the appeal with costs declaring the appellants/plaintiffs as absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential reliefs of

Possession and means profits against the Respondents.

A.S.No.277/20073II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026

2.The appellants are the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and the respondents are the defendants 1 to 3 in the main suit. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the main suit for the sake of convenience of the Court.

3. Appellants prays to set aside the decree and Judgment dt. 01.05.2007 made in O.S.No.28/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur and to allow the appeal with costs declaring the appellants/plaintiffs as absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential relief of possession and mesne profits against the respondents

4. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows that the suit schedule properties belonged to late Maddi Ramaiah and his wife

Nagabhushanamma, who, according to the plaintiff, died intestate on the same day in 1998. It is pleaded that the first plaintiff is the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to their estate, but the first defendant, taking advantage of the situation, illegally occupied the properties immediately after their death. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants subsequently dispossessed him, have been enjoying the lands and house properties and deriving income, and refused to hand over possession despite repeated demands. It is further alleged that the first defendant created a false and fabricated will dated 6.4.1998 and even obtained collusive decrees to defeat the plaintiff’s rights. On these grounds, the plaintiff seeks declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits.

A.S.No.277/20074II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026

5.The brief averments of the written statement that the defendants deny all material allegations of the plaint and contend that Ramaiah and

Nagabhushanamma did not die intestate, but had executed a valid will on 6.4.1998 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the properties in favour of the first defendant. They assert that the first defendant was closely related, was brought up by and looked after the deceased couple, performed their last rites, and therefore was the natural beneficiary. It is further contended that the will was duly acted upon, succession proceedings were obtained, debts of the deceased were cleared, and the first defendant has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the properties as absolute owner ever since. They also claim that certain items of the suit property are independent properties of the defendant’s family and not part of the estate of the deceased. Hence, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has no right, title, or possession over the suit properties and the suit is false and liable to be dismissed.

6.3rd defendant filed written statement and the contents of the written statement is that in a civil property dispute case (O.S. No. 28/2001) before the

Senior Civil Judge at Parchur. The defendant denies the plaintiff’s claims that

Maddi Ramaiah and his wife Nagabhushanamma died without a will and that the plaintiff became the sole legal heir to the disputed properties. Instead, the defendant argues that Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma had legally executed a

Will dated 6-4-1998 in favor of the first defendant, whom they had raised and treated like family. The statement says the first defendant became the rightful owner after their deaths in 1998 and that the plaintiff has no legal possession or

A.S.No.277/20075II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026 ownership rights. It further claims that earlier court cases regarding the same properties were already decided in favor of the first defendant, that he paid off loans taken by Ramaiah, performed the funeral rites, and maintained the properties. The document also accuses the plaintiff of filing the suit falsely to grab the land and harass the defendants.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge has framed the following issues:-

1)Whether the deceased Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma died intestate or not?

2)Whether Nagabhushanmma and Ramaiah had executed alleged wills as pleaded by the 1st defendant are binding on the plaintiffs

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration or title over the schedule properties

4)To what relief?

8.On behalf of plaintiff, Plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.5 are marked. On behalf of defendants D1 to D5 are examined and

Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.22 are marked

9.The trial court, upon hearing the counsels of both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, in the result, is dismissed no costs

Hence the appeal is preferred against the said decree and Judgment on the

following among other grounds that are to be urged at the time of hearing :-

1. The Judgment and Decree of the lower court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

A.S.No.277/20076II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026

2. The lower court erred in dismissing the suit. The lower court should have decreed the suit as prayed for.

3. The lower court should have given a finding regarding the succession also under Issue No3. As per the Hindu succession Act, the first plaintiff is the legal heir to his brother late Maddu Ramaiah and his wife Nagabhushanamma.

4. The lower court should have held that the defendants are in illegal possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.

5. The finding of the lower court on Issues 1 and 2 is illegal, opposed to facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record.

6. The lower court should have held that the deceased Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma died intestate.

7. The lower court should have held that the alleged Wills said to have been executed by Nagabhushanamma and Ramaiah are not true and are not valid and are not binding on the plaintiffs.

8. The lower court should have accepted the oral and documentary evidence, that is the evidence of PW1 and Ex A1 to A5.

9. The lower court should have disbelieved the evidence of DWs 1 to 5 and should have rejected EXs B1 to B22. It is submitted that the evidence of DWs 1 to 5 unnatural artificial, full of discrepancies and contradictions.

10.The lower court should have held that Exs B3 and B4 Wills are forged documents.

11.The lower court should have held that Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma were old and were not in sound disposing state of mind at the time of alleged execution of alleged wills.

12.Though the lower court cited number of decisions, they have not been properly appreciated not applied to the facts of the case.

13.The lower court should have held that the first plaintiff is the agnate of the deceased Ramaiah and plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the LRs of the first plaintiffs, as he died during the course of trial and the first plaintiff and his branch are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma, who are issue-less and that by way of succession plaintiffs 2 to 5 are legally, entitled for the plaint schedule property through the first plaintiff as a successor of Nagabhushanamma and Ramaiah.

A.S.No.277/20077II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026

14.The lower court should have seen that D1 to D3 are not the agnates of Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma and hence they have fabricated and introduced EXs B3 and B4 wills alleging that they have been executed by Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma bequeathing their property in favour of the first defendant styling that he was fostered by the above said couple.

15.The lower court should have seen that Exs B3 and B4 are not properly proved as prescribed under sec 63 of Indian Succession Act and Sec 68 of Indian Evidence Act.

16.The lower court should have seen that the evidence of the scribe DW3 is contrary to the evidence of the attestor DW2 on material particulars, regarding the time of execution etc.,

17.The lower court should have seen that Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma did not have free will or sound mind at the time of alleged execution of Exs B3 and B4.

18.The lower court should have seen that the lines inserted in EXs B3 and B4 themselves show that those documents were fabricated through scribe i.e. DW3 and there are so many suspicious circumstances in the affair.

19.The lower court should have seen that EXs B5 to B9 are created only to support the case of the first defendant and that nobody will obtain such receipts in routine course.

20.The lower court should have seen that performance of obsequies by D1, even if true, cannot defeat the legal rights of the first plaintiff to get the plaint schedule property by way of succession.

21.The lower court should have seen the mischievous intention of D1 to create and fabricate evidence in the nature of O.S. 36/2001 proceeding and caveat petitions.

22.The reasoning of the lower court in paras 22 and 23 of the judgment is not tenable under law or circumstances of the case.

23.It is submitted that some circumstances which throw suspicion about the execution of Exs B3 and B4 have not been pleaded by plaintiffs nor considered by the lower court.

24.The lower court failed to discuss the aspect of pass books etc while deciding about Exs B3 and B4.

25.The lower court did not properly appreciate the fact relating to the non- examination of the other attestor.

A.S.No.277/20078II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026

26.The lower court did not properly bestow attention on the aspect of non- registration of Exs B3 and B4.

27.If D1 is the only son of Veeraiah, it is not possible nor natural to give him to deceased Ramaiah’s custody as foster son of Ramaiah. Veeraiah has got four daughters also.

28.D1 is the only son to Ramaiah’s brother veeriaiah and as such he was fostered by the deceased Ramaiah (D1’s written statement). Hence D1’s contention that he was fostered by the deceased Ramaiah does not appear to be natural nor probable).

and prays that the Hon’ble court to may be pleased to allow the appeal with costs setting aside the Judgment and decree dt. 01.05.2007 in O.s.No.28/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, parchur and to decree the said suit withcosts declaring that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential relief of possession and mesne profits against the respondents and to award costs of the suit and also of this appeal and to grant other just appropriate reliefs in the circumstances of this appeal.

10.Now, the points for consideration is :-

1.Whether the decree and judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Parchur in O.S.No.28/2011 dt: 01.05.2007 is not in accordance with law, contrary to the evidence and hence liable to be set aside or not?

2.Whether there are any justifiable grounds to do so?

3.To what relief?

11.Written arguments filed on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs 2 to 5 on 16.09.2011 and on 04.02.2026 Written arguments filed on behalf of the 1st respondent

A.S.No.277/20079II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026

12. POINT No.1 & 2 :

Point No.1 and 2 are answered together for convenient sake and to avoid repetition of discussions.

13.Here the evidence considered by this court: On a careful re appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the respective testimonies of PW1 and DWs 1 to 5 have been examined in the light of the settled principles governing proof of wills, which require strict compliance with statutory requirements and satisfactory explanation of any suspicious circumstances. The evidence of PW1, though consistent, remains interested in nature and is not supported by independent or convincing material to probabilise the plea of intestacy. The criticisms directed against the defence evidence, particularly with regard to alleged inconsistencies, corrections in documents, or the role of the scribe and attestors, do not appear to go to the root of the matter. The testimony of the attesting witness and the scribe, when read as a whole, establishes the essential ingredients of due execution and attestation, and the alleged discrepancies are minor in nature and do not create any serious or legitimate suspicion. The contention regarding lack of sound disposing state of mind is also not substantiated by any reliable evidence, as mere old age or physical weakness cannot be equated with testamentary incapacity.

14.Further, the surrounding circumstances, including the relationship between the deceased and the first defendant, the absence of natural heirs, and the overall probabilities of the case, lend support to the genuineness of the testamentary disposition. The objections relating to non-registration, non-

A.S.No.277/200710II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026 examination of another attestor, or alleged fabrication of supporting documents are insufficient to discredit the wills in the absence of stronger evidence. The precedents relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts and do not advance the challenge to the wills.

15.In view of the above appreciation, it is ultimately held that Exs. B3 and

B4 are validly executed and proved, free from suspicious circumstances, and that the deceased Ramaiah and Nagabhushanamma died testate. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to establish any right, title, or entitlement over the suit schedule property, and the findings of the trial court warrant no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

16. On perusal of entire record the final determination of court is that:On perusal of the entire record, the oral and documentary evidence of PW1 and DWs 1 to 5 has been re appreciated in the light of settled principles governing proof of wills. Though PW1 has consistently denied the execution of the wills, his testimony remains interested and is not supported by convincing independent evidence. On the other hand, the evidence of the attesting witness and the scribe, when read together, establishes due execution and attestation of Exs. B3 and B4 in accordance with law. The discrepancies and alleged suspicious circumstances pointed out by the plaintiff are minor in nature and do not affect the core validity of the documents. The contention regarding lack of sound disposing state of mind is also not substantiated, as mere old age does not invalidate a will. Further, the surrounding circumstances lend support to the defence case. Therefore, on an

A.S.No.277/200711II-ADJ Court, Ongole

Dt.08.05.2026 overall appreciation, the findings of the trial court are found to be proper, justified, and based on sound reasoning. Accordingly the points are answered.

17. To what relief?

In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs by confirming the decree and Judgment dated 01.05.2007 passed in O.S.No.28/2001 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.P.Lalitha

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side

Sd/-Smt.P.Lalitha

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

// True Copy \\

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

12

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE.

PRESENT : Smt.P.Lalitha,

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE CUM SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OF-

FENCES AGAINST WOMEN, PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Appeal Suit No. 277of 2007

Between:

1. Maddu Sundaramma, W/o late Yenoku, aged 74 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Audipudi village, Karmachedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Meka Suvarthamma, W/o late Aseervadam, aged 49 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Punur villalge, Yaddanapdu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Peddapalli Vijayakumari, W/o Vishnu Murthy, aged 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Edurapalli village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Maddu Deva Manemma, D/o late Yenoku, aged 39 years, Hindu, Nurse, R/o Kakinada Town, East Godavari District. … Appellant/Plaintiffs 2 to 5.

AND

1. Maddu Samyulu, Alias Samuel, S/o late Veeraiah, aged about 57 years,

2. Maddu Poul, S/o Samyulu @ Samuel, aged about 34 years,

3. Maddu Yacob @ Ramaiah, S/o Samyulu Alias Samuel, aged about 31 years,

All are Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Audipudi village, Karamchedul Mandal, Prakasam District. … Respondent/ (Defendants 1 to 3)

APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS. 2 TO 5)

UNDER ORDER 41, RULE 1 AND SECTION 96 C.P.C. AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.01.05.2007 IN O.S.NO. 28/2001 ON THE FILE OF

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, PARCHURU.

Between:

1. Moddu Yenoku (Died)

2. Maddu Sundaramma, W/o late Yenoku, aged 74 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Audipudi village, Karmachedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Meka Suvarthamma, W/o late Aseervadam, aged 49 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Punur villalge, Yaddanapdu Mandal, Prakasam District.

13

4. Peddapalli Vijayakumari, W/o Vishnu Murthy, aged 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Edurapalli village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. Maddu Deva Manemma, D/o late Yenoku, aged 39 years, Hindu, Nurse, R/o Kakinada Town, East Godavari District.….Plaintiffs

AND

1. Maddu Samyulu, Alias Samuel, S/o late Veeraiah, aged about 57 years,

2. Maddu Poul, S/o Samyulu @ Samuel, aged about 34 years,

3. Maddu Yacob @ Ramaiah, S/o Samyulu Alias Samuel, aged about 31 years,

All are Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Audipudi village, Karamchedul Mandal, Prakasam District.…. Defendants

The Appellant/Plaintiff filed this appeal against the respondents/defendants as against the decree and judgment, dated:01.05.2007 in O.S. No.28/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur seeking to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree.

Appeal presented on 16.07.2007 Appeal filed on 19.07.2007-

Valuation and Court Fee:

A Court fee of Rs.4,026/- is paid by means of deposit in SBI, District Court complex, Ongole under section 24(a) and Sec.49 of APCF and SV Act on Rs.1,55,670.37 paise as per the lwoer court. The value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.1,55,670.37 paise.

This Appeal is coming on 24.04.2026 for Judgment before me and of Sri. S. Sivaramakrishna Prasad and Smt.Ch.Nagendram Learned Advocates for Appellants/Plaintiffs 2 to 5 and of Sri Chunduri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for R1, and the 2nd respondent remained exparte and of Sri.Ch.Chaitanya learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth Order and Decree:

(1)that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the decree and Judgment dated 01.05.2007 passed in O.S.No.28/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur.

14 (2)that each party do bear their own costs.

(C.M & F.C not filed on either side )

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.P.Lalitha

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

// Table of Costs \\

NIL

Sd/-Smt.P.Lalitha

II-A.D.J, ONGOLE.

NOTE:The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

// True Copy \\

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

15

1 APPR000019882026

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

In the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Smt.P.Lalitha II-Additional District & Sessions Judge cum- Spl.Court for trial of offences against women Prakasam District, Ongole. Friday this the 08th day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.227 of 2026

in Cr.No.34/2026 of Santhamaguluru Police Station

Between:

Vennapusa Ashok Reddy S/o Konda Reddy, aged 29 years Reddy by caste, Elchur Village Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District …. Petitioner/Accused/A1

A N D

The S.H.O of Santhamaguluru P.S. Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.D.V.Vasistha, Learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused, and of Sri.N.Avaneesh Additional Public Prosecutor for the State–Complainant/Respondent appearing for the State/respondent, upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// O R D E R //

1.This bail application filed by the petitioner/accused Under section 483 of

B.N.S.S, with a request to enlarge him on bail that he had been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime No.34 of 2026 of S.Maguluru Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) of Bharathiya Nyaya

Samhitha, 2023 and that he had been remanded to judicial custody on 08.04.2026.

2.Notice furnished to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he opposed the grant of bail.

2

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

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

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

6. This Court has perused the entire crime record and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter and on such evaluation, it is found that on 06.04.2026 at

Elchuru village, S.Maguluru Mandal, in which the accused Vennapusa Ashok Reddy who is classmate of the complainant from 6th to 10th class and they are good friends since then the accused repeatedly stalked the complainant that proclaiming that he loves her. Though she expressed her unwilling many times, he persistently followed her while she was going to college, blarneyed her that he loves her and he would marry her, blackmailed her that he would commit suicide, if she would not love him.

Even though she refused to gain her trust he got her nick name as ARU tattooed on his left shoulder and made her to believe him. Believing his promises, with a fond hope that he would get marry her, in the year 2012 she accepted his love proposal.

At this juncture in the year 2016, while she was pursuing her degree at Krishnaveni college, Narasaraopeta, he promised that he would get marry her, assured her that he would not marry anyone else and exploited her sexually. Since then he has been continuing physical relation with her by making false promise to deceive her. He made the complainant to believe her that he would get marry her and took money from her and got transferred to the account of his mother Roja through phone pe.

When she asked him firmly in the presence of her mother and relatives about the 3 marriage, he refused to marry her by proclaiming that he has no intention of marrying her and threatened her that she asks him again about their marriage he would upload the photos of him and her in social media, thereby drag her family’s reputation through the mud humiliate her and drive her to commit suicide. Later when asked Ashok Reddy and his family members through their village elders regarding this matter they did not aspect to marry. Subsequently Ashok Reddy’s mother, Roja and his paternal uncle Anantha Reddy came to their house questioned about their caste elders for asking to marry their son and threatened them they would make them expel from the village, if they ask them about the marriage again.

Thus the case.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused submits that, petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that only refusal of the proposal of the marriage put forth by the defacto complainant by the petitioner resulted in fabricating the false case and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as alleged by the complainant happened which is evident from the report and the delay of 10 years in reporting that matter is fatal and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that material part of investigation is completed and by keeping the petitioner in remand no purpose will be served to the prosecution and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is having permanent abode and prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

8.I have carefully gone through the F.I.R, complaint report and other material available on record. This is a case of sexual intercourse through deceitful means or 4 a false promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it followed criminal intimidation to provoke the breach of peace. There are specific overt acts against the petitioner/Accused. Adverting to the above, the petitioner/Accused is in jail from 08.04.2026 only. Coming to the investigation, the investigation officer has examined seven material witnesses. It seems that material part of investigation is completed.

Hence, there is no question of tamper the evidence or hamper with the investigation process. During the course of arguments, it has come on record that, the petitioner has got permanent abode and solvent sureties. There is no flight risk. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and the stage of investigation, and so also the period of remand of the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.9.In the result, the petition is allowed, ordering the release of theIn the result, the petition is allowed, ordering the release of the petitioner/accused on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with twopetitioner/accused on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Judl.Magistratesureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I-Class, Addankiof I-Class, Addanki..

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.P.Lalitha

II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

2. The Station House Officer, Santha maguluru Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioner.

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

Chief Administrative Officer,

II-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

5

1 APPR000019612026

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

In the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Smt.P.Lalitha II-Additional District & Sessions Judge cum- Spl.Court for trial of offences against women Prakasam District, Ongole. Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.223 of 2026

in Cr.No.77/2026 of Chirala Rural Police Station

Between:

Asadi Tejarami Reddy @ Pawan Teja Reddy s/o Anji Reddy, agd about 22 years Hindu, caste by Reddy, Coolie R/o D.No.5-98, Chirala Nagar Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District …. Petitioner/Accused

A N D

The S.H.O of Chirala I-Town P.S. Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.A.Satish Reddy , Learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused, and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State–Complainant/Respondent appearing for the State/respondent, upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// O R D E R //

1.This bail application filed by the petitioner/accused Under section 483 of

B.N.S.S, with a request to enlarge him on bail that he had been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime No.77 of 2026 of Chirala I-Town Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 108 of Bharathiya Nyaya

Samhitha, 2023 and that he had been remanded to judicial custody on 15.04.2026.

2.Notice furnished to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he opposed the grant of bail.

2

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

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of bail or

otherwise?

6. This Court has perused the entire crime record and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter and on such evaluation, it is found that on 15.04.2026 in between 12.00 to 17.00 hrs at Cattle shed of complainant at Kothapalem village,

Chirala mandal and reported in the police station on 14.04.2026 at 23.30 hrs by the complainant namely Bala Yedukondalu Reddy S/o Nanchara Reddy in which the complainant state that his son i.e., deceased Bala Mahesh Reddy is living by running milk business., The deceased was gotg friendship with the accused Asadi pawan Teja Reddy R/o Patha Chirala village of Chirala mandal and the deceased used to give money to accused for his expense, recently said accused/Petitioner pressuring the deceased for money, due to which the deceased got mental agony.

O15.04.2026 at about12.00 hrs the deceased went to cattle shed located near to their house and did not come back, due to which at about 17.00 hrs aunt of complainant went to cattle shed and observed that the deceased was committed suicide by rope and hanging. After knowing the same the complainant and others rushed to spot and removed the deceased from hang. They noticed one suicide note left by the deceased in which the deceased clearly mentioned that Asadi

Pawan Teja Reddy is responsible for this suicide. Hence, the complainant lodged a report for necessary action. Thus the case

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused submits that, petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he himself surrender before the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, at Chirala and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he will attend the court regularly and co-operate in 3 investigation in accordance with the conditions of this Hon’ble court and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is eking his livelihood by coolie work and he is the only the bred winner to hisfamily and he is having liability to look after his mother and old aged grand mother and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is having permanent abode and prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

8.I have carefully gone through the F.I.R, complaint report and other material available on record. This is a case of abetment to suicide with common intention.

Adverting to the above, the petitioner/Accused is in jail from 15.04.2026 only.

Coming to the investigation, the investigation officer has examined Ten material witnesses. Coming to the investigation, the investigation in this case is not yet completed and the same is pending for preserved material objects and suicide note yet to be sent to FSL for hand writing expert. In such circumstances, if the petitioner / Accused is released on bail, at this stage, there is every possibility that he may absconded on bail and threat the witnesses and so also tamper the evidence and hamper with the investigation process. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner / Accused as of now. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.9.In the result, the petition is dismissed.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.P.Lalitha

II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class, Chirala

2. The Station House Officer, Chirala I-Town Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioner.

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

Chief Administrative Officer,

II-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

4

1 APPR000019382026

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

In the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Smt.P.Lalitha II-Additional District & Sessions Judge cum- Spl.Court for trial of offences against women Prakasam District, Ongole. Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.219 of 2026

in Cr.No.23/2026 of Chinaganjam Police Station

Between:

Yallavula Ravi S/o Koteswara Rao Aged 32 years, Yadava by caste Avuladoddi, Pathagollapalem village Pedaganjam panchayati Chinnaganjam Mandal, Guntur District …. Petitioner/Accused

A N D

The S.H.O of Chinnaganjam P.S. Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.Kesava Rao, Learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused, and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State–Complainant/Respondent appearing for the State/respondent, upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// O R D E R //

1.This bail application filed by the petitioner/accused Under section 483 of

B.N.S.S, with a request to enlarge him on bail that he had been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime No.23 of 2026 of Chinaganjam Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 333, 64 r/w 62, 115(2), 351(2) of

Bharathiya Nyaya Samhitha, 2023 and that he had been remanded to judicial custody on 21.04.2026.

2

2.Notice furnished to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he opposed the grant of bail.

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

4.Heard both the sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of bail or

otherwise?

6. This Court has perused the entire crime record and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter and on such evaluation, it is found that on 22.02.2026 at midnight at the house of the complainant at Avuladoddi, Pathagollapalem village,

Peddaganjam Panchayat, Chinaganjam mandal that the victim was sleeping on the cot, at that time the accused Yallavaula Ravi of same village criminally tresspassed into the house of the victim, the accused lying on her cot and touching her private body parts. The victim woke up and thinking it was her husband called out to him, but the accused did not respond and when the victim, tried to get up from the bed, the accused Yallavula Ravi did not allow her to rise and he placed his hand over her mouth and threatened her not to shout and attempted to commit rape on her.

She forcefully pushed him aside. The victim shouted at the accused Yallavula Ravi asking why he had come to her house. At the time the accused Ravi caught holdof her throat and pushed, threatened that he would kill them if they raised alaram, abused them with filthy language and escaped from the house. Thus the case

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused submits that, petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the incident took place on 22.02.2026 but the report was lodged only on 02.03.2026 and there is delay in 8 days and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the said delay and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that she refused to undergo 3 medical examination and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner not involved in any other criminal cases and has never been convicted earlier and the statements of L.ws 1 to 8 were recorded under section 180(3) of B.N.S.S and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is permanent resident of Avulaoddi village and has no intention to abscond and prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

8.I have carefully gone through the F.I.R, complaint report and other material available on record. This is a case of attempt to rape by criminally tress-pass into the house of the complainant simple hurt and followed by criminal intimidation.

Adverting to the above, the petitioner/Accused is in jail from 21.04.2026 only.

Coming to the investigation, the investigation officer has examined eight material witnesses. Coming to the investigation, the investigation in this case is pending some more witnesses have to be examined. In such circumstances, if the petitioner / Accused is released on bail, at this stage, there is every possibility that he may absconded on bail and threat the witnesses and so also tamper the evidence and hamper with the investigation process. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner / Accused as of now. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.9.In the result, the petition is dismissed.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

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

Sd/-Smt.P.Lalitha

II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s court, Chirala

2. The Station House Officer, Chinaganjam Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioner.

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

Chief Administrative Officer,

II-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

Crl.M.P.No.243/2026 II-ADJ Court, Ongole

1 APPR000020652026

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

In the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Smt.A.PURNIMA

III-Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ongole

I/c II-Additional District & Sessions Judge cum- Spl.Court for trial of offences against women Prakasam District, Ongole. Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.243/2026

Between:

Dokka Chinna Kondaiah S/o Ramaswamy, Aged about 53 years R/o Door.No.2-20-4, Vital nagar Behind Goods Shed, Chirala Bapatla District …. Petitioner/Accused/A4

A N D

The S.H.O of Ongole Taluka P.S. Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is coming on 18.05.2026 for Case Diary and hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.Kesava Rao, Learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused/A4, and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State–Complainant/Respondent appearing for the State/respondent, upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// O R D E R //

This bail application filed by the petitioner/accused Under section 438 of

Cr.P.C with a request to enlarge him on bail that he had been falsely implicated in the case registered as Crime No.233 of 2026 of Ongole Taluka Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Crl.M.P.No.243/2026 II-ADJ Court, Ongole

2

Heard. This petition is dismissed as not pressed. Memo is recorded.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Smt.A.Purnima III-Addl.District and Sessions Judge I/c II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

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

Chief Administrative Officer,

II-Addl. District Court, Ongole.

Crl.M.P.No.243/2026 II-ADJ Court, Ongole

3