Sri S. Damodara Rao

1 Crl.M.P.No. 1067/2026 in Cr.No. 69/2026

of Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam City

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- Sri D.Seshayya,

III Addl.District Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases

I/C Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P No. 1067/2026

(Cr.No. 69/2026 of Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)

Between:

1)Boddu Ravi Kiran, S/o. Late Suryanarayana Murthy, aged 49 years, R/at Door No.58-1-410, NAD Junction, Hairport SPA Owner, Visakhapatnam.

2)Paila Neelakanta Reddy, s/o Narasimha Reddy, aged 42 years, R/at Hairport SPA, NAD Junction, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners/Accused 1&2

And

The State, represented by the Station House Officer, Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam City through the Addl. Public Prosecutor.

... Respondent/Complainant

This Petition was coming on 12.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.A. Raju, Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused 1&2 and ofSri S.V.Ramana,Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

The above named Petitioners/A1 and A2 have filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BNSS for brevity) seeking relief to enlarge them on bail in Crime No. 69/2026 of Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam City for the offence punishable under Sections U/Sec.143(3), 144(2) Bharatiya

2 Crl.M.P.No. 1067/2026 in Cr.No. 69/2026

of Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam City

Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred as BNS for brevity) and Sec.3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of PIT Act of .

2.The case of the prosecution is that, this is a case of organizing prostitution by immoral traffic of women, occurred on 18.03.2026 at 7.00

P.M., at D.No.58-1-410, Hair Port Saloon & SPA, NAD Junction,

Visakhapatnam City.

b)The Inspector of Police -cum- Station House Officer, Airport P.S.,

Visakhapatnam (hereinafter called as Complainant) received information about organizing of prostitution at the said address and informed the same to superiors. After obtaining permission from the superiors, the complainant secured the presence of mediators, staff and proceeded to the said address, where, they found A2 at the reception counter with two woman. On enquiry, A2 disclosed the conducting of prostitution being run by A1 by securing woman who were in the financial troubles.

c)On inspection of the rooms, the complainant found A3 and one woman in a compromising state. Then, the complainant arrested A1 to A3 under the cover of mediators report and seized 6 mobile phones and cash of Rs.4000/-. They also rescued three woman and sent them to Swadar

Home. A1 and A2 were sent to the court for remand, whereas Sec.35(3)

BNS notice was issued to A3.

d)Basing on the Mediators Report, the complainant registered the same as a case in Crime No. 69/2026 of Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam City for the offence punishable under Sections U/Sec.143(3), 144(2) Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (hereinafter referred as BNS for brevity) and Sec.3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of PIT Act.

3)Notice is given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and he submitted C.D file.

4)Heard, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/A1 and A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3 Crl.M.P.No. 1067/2026 in Cr.No. 69/2026

of Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam City

5)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail, but fairly conceded that the investigation is completed and charge sheet also filed.

6)The learned counsel for the Petitioners/A1 and A2 submitted arguments that the the petitioners are innocent people and they falsely implicated in this case. The entire investigation was completed and the police filed the charge sheet. This is second bail application. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 18.03.2026 i.e., more than 50 days.

7) Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the request of Petitioners / Accused 1 and 2 for grant of bail can be accepted to”? POINT:

8)Perused the F.I.R. and C.D. and Counter filed by the Prosecution.

9)As seen from the record, the entire investigation was completed and charge sheet also filed. The petitioners/A1 and A2 have been in judicial custody from 18.03.2026 onwards i.e., more than 50 days. It is the submission of the petitioners that they will comply the conditions imposed by this court. Further, the presence of petitioners/A1 and A2 is not required for any custodial interrogation by prosecution. Therefore, this court inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A1 and A2.

10) In the result, this petition is allowed. The petitioners/A1 and A2 shall be released on bail on their execution of self bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- D.Seshayya

III Addl.District Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases

I/C Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

4 Crl.M.P.No. 1067/2026 in Cr.No. 69/2026

of Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam City

Copies to:

1) The VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

2) The Addl., Public Prosecutor, VI ADJ Court, Visakhapatnam.

3) The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2.

5 Crl.M.P.No. 1067/2026 in Cr.No. 69/2026

of Airport P.S., Visakhapatnam City

1 Crl.M.P.No. 873/2026 in Cr.No. 170/2025

of MVP P.S, Visakhapatnam City.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- SRI S.DAMODARA RAO,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Visakhapatnam

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P No. 873/2026 IN Cr.No. 170/2025 of MVP P.S

Between:

1) Simma Varalakshmi, W/o. Bhaskara Rao, Aged 59 years, R/o D.No.2- 25, Gopalapatnam Village, Tadiparthi Panchayati, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2) Chinnala Ademma, W/o Chinnala Jagannadham, Aged 49 years, R/o.D.No.2-4, Gatlapadu Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Vandrada, Peddabommali, Srikakulam District.

3) Kottu Parvathi, W/o Kottu Lakshminarayana, Aged 42 years, R/o. D.No.2-15, 2nd street, Kotta Kondragolu, Hiramandalam, Srikakulam District.

4) Panga Nagamma, W/o Panga Lakshmana Rao, Aged 33 years, R/o.D.No.1-26, Tadiparthi Panchayati, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District.

5) Palli Ammalu, W/o Palli Savarayya, Aged 33 years, R/oC-80, Velama Street, Jilleduvalasa Village, Jaduru Post, Polaki Mandal, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District.

... Petitioners/A3, A4, A6 to A8

And

The State represented by Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent

This Petition was coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Jagadeeswara Rao, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/A3, A4, A6 to A8 and of Sri S.V.Ramana, Addl. Public Prosecutor

for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till

this day, this Court made the following :

2 Crl.M.P.No. 873/2026 in Cr.No. 170/2025

of MVP P.S, Visakhapatnam City.

O R D E R

This bail application is filed by the petitioner/Accused under Section 482 of BNSS for committal of bail on behalf of A3, A4 and A6 to A8.

2.Notice give to other side.

3.It is contended by the petitioners that earlier anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.2264/2025 and it was not ordered to execute the sureties by the petitioners in spite of they complied the rest of orders herein and it is lacking of the condition to execute their personal bonds before the concerned authority. In those circumstances, it is difficult to pass a committal order and praying to rectify the defect by ordering to execute the sureties before the concerned Court.

4.As seen from the Order Copy filed by the petitioners in

Crl.M.P.No.2264/2025 passed by this Court, there is no order to execute

the surety bonds of the petitioners. In those circumstances, the earlier defect whichever erroneously crept in the orders is rectified under 151 of

Cr.P.C.

5.In the result, the petition is allowed, the petitioners are directed to execute their personal bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction the committal court i.e., IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the earlier order is modified.

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

me, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S.Damodara Rao,

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

Copies to:

1) The IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

2) The Addl., Public Prosecutor, VI ADJ Court, Visakhapatnam.

3)The learned counsel for the Petitioners/A3, A4 and A6 to A8.

1 Crl.M.P.No. 950/2026 in Cr.No. 12/2026 of

Dwaraka P.S, Visakhapatnam City.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- SRI S.DAMODARA RAO,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Visakhapatnam

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P No. 950/2026 IN Cr.No. 12/2026 of Dwaraka P.S

Between: Padala Gowri Naidu, S/o. Bantaiah, Aged 53 years, r/o.Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam.

... Petitioner/Accused

And

The State, the SHO, Dwaraka P.S, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent

This Petition was coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Leela Naga Mohan Krishna, the learned Assistant Legal Aid Defence counsel forthe Petitioner/Accused and of Sri S.V.Ramana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This bail application is filed by the petitioner/Accused under Section 483 of BNSS, praying the court to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the alleged offence punishable U/Section 109(1) of BNS in Crime No.12/2026 of Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

2.Notice give to other side. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor not opposed the bail application since the accused is under judicial custody from 23.01.2026.

3.The learned Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner under judicial custody from 23.01.2026 and praying the petitioner to enlarge on bail and also he has offered sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and further undertaking that he will

2 Crl.M.P.No. 950/2026 in Cr.No. 12/2026 of

Dwaraka P.S, Visakhapatnam City.

not tamper the prosecution witnesses and praying the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petition is liable to be allowed”?

POINT:

5.As seen from the note on the petition, the petitioner remanded to judicial custody on 23.01.2026, four months elapsed. The petitioner/accused is entitled indefeasible bail also. But it seems to be he did not move before the concerned Court, as such he is enlarged on bail.

In those circumstances, this Court inclined to allow this petition.

6.In the result, this petition is allowed enlarging the petitioner/Accused on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam. The petitioner is further directed do not tramper the prosecution witnesses and also further directed to cooperate with the prosecution agency.

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

me, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S.Damodara Rao,

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

Copies to:

1) The I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

2) The Addl., Public Prosecutor, VI ADJ Court, Visakhapatnam.

3)The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused.

1 Crl.M.P.No. 965/2026 in Cr.No. 90/2026

of Airport P.S, Visakhapatnam City

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- SRI S.DAMODARA RAO,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Visakhapatnam

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P No. 965/2026 IN Cr.No. 90/2026 of Airport P.S, Visakhapatnam

city

Between: Kolli Ramu Naidu, S/o. Late China Peddinaidu, Aged 37 years, caste by Koppula Velama, residing at D.No. 39-29-24, Bheem Nagar, Near Saibaba Temple Arch, beside Gandhi Nagar, Visakhapatnam and native of Khandivaram, Veerabhadrapeta, Cheedikada Mandal, Anakapalle District.

... Petitioner/Accused

And

The State represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam (Inspector ofg Police, Airport P.S, Visakhapatnam City)

... Respondent

This Petition was coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.A.Prasad (Baji), the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and of Sri S.V.Ramana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This bail application is filed by the petitioner/Accused under Section 483 of BNSS, praying the court to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the alleged offence punishable U/Section 85, 115(2), 118(1) & 109(1) of BNS in Crime No. 90/2026 of Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

2.Notice give to other side. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, as the investigation is pending, some more witnesses are to be examined.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he did not commit any offence and

2 Crl.M.P.No. 965/2026 in Cr.No. 90/2026

of Airport P.S, Visakhapatnam City falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is permanent resident of

Visakhapatnam and also having fixed abode. He is law abiding citizen and he will not tamper the evidence and prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.04.2026 and praying the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petition is liable to be allowed”?

POINT:

5.As seen from the C.D, investigation is in progress, the material witnesses are to be examined. The nature of injuries the cruel manner of assault, use of multiple dangerous weapons. The repeated threats to kill and the clear motive to eliminate the victim in order to remarry another person. In those circumstances it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

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

me, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S.Damodara Rao,

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

1 Crl.M.P.No. 939/2026 in Cr.No. 37/2026 of

Narsipatnam Town P.S,

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- SRI S.DAMODARA RAO,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Visakhapatnam

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P No. 939/2026 IN Cr.No. 37/2026 of Narsipatnam Town P.S

Between: Manthina Hari @ Haribabu, S/o. Trimurthulu, Aged 29 years, Religion: Hindu, Occupation: Cooli, R/o Ayyanna Colony, Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District. N/o D.No.1-84, Rapaka village,K.Mallavaram Post, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

... Petitioner/A1

And

The State, the Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Town Police Station, Anakapalli District represented by its Public Prosecutor.

... Respondent

This Petition was coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Dr.G.Siva Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and of Sri S.V.Ramana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This bail application is filed by the petitioner/A1 under Section 483 of

BNSS, praying the court to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the alleged offence punishable U/Section 69, 88, 79 of BNS in Crime No. 37/2026 of

Narsipatnam Town Police Station.

2.Notice give to other side. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, investigation is pending, some more witnesses are to be examined.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he did not commit any offence and falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 09.03.2026

2 Crl.M.P.No. 939/2026 in Cr.No. 37/2026 of

Narsipatnam Town P.S, i.e., more than 60 days and praying the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petition is liable to be allowed”?

POINT:

5.As seen from the C.D, the material witnesses are to be examined, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is every hope to influence or threat to the prosecution witnesses. In those circumstances it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

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

me, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S.Damodara Rao,

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam