Smt S.Sreedevi

1 MSJ Court, VSP

Crl.M.P.No.831/2023

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-cum-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER NDPS ACT: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi, Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences Under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, the 16th day of April, 2024

CRL.M.P.No.831/2023 in S.C.No.125/2021

(Cr.No.ECIR/03/VKSZO/2017) Between:

1.Deepak Agarwal, S/o Suresh Chandra Agarwal, Hindu, Age 41, R/o Chitrabhanu Nivas, Post Office Back side, Karwara, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

... petitioner/A23

And: The State rep. by Special Public Prosecutor through the Enforcement Directorate, Visakhapatnam

...Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before me on 15-04-2024 for final hearing in the presence of S/s. Gnani Vivek Karra, Latika Deo, VISLAW ASSOCIATES, Advocates for petitioner/A23 and of Sri. P.Srinivasa Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.The petitioner/A23 filed this petition praying the Court to permit him to travel abroad i.e., to visit China for a period of 60 days so as get himself engaged in trading, to import and export and to direct the Investigating Officer to give prior 30 days notice when Investigating Officer conducts investigation and the brief case of the petitioner is as follows:

2.S.C.125/2021 stands posted to 30-08-2023 for the purpose of issuance of summons. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Honourable High Court of A.P vide its Orders in Crl.Petition No.2940/2021 Dt.29-06-2021. On 22-02-2021 the petitioner was arrested and subsequently he was granted bail. The Honourable High Court of AP made an observation that the petitioner shall not leave the country without obtaining prior permission from the Court concerned. The petitioner has been working in China for the past 20 years and he is involved in trading to import and export his products to Guangtok and surrounding areas. The petitioner is aged about 45 years and from the time he was arrested as an accused, his livelihood had been effected and consequently he has not been able to take care of his family as he is unable to carry on his business. The petitioner attached the details of Visa stamping and other inward and outward immigration stamps to 2 MSJ Court, VSP

Crl.M.P.No.831/2023

show that the petitioner has been going ON and OFF to China. The petitioner filed proof along with the petition to show that he used to run a company. The petitioner intends to attend business meetings with effect from 15-08-2023 to 15-10-2023. The Court can impose appropriate conditions to ensure his presence and he is permanent resident of Jaipur and his entire family members have been residing at Jaipur and the factory, home and the other properties of the petitioner are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has the right to lead the life with dignity, honour and reputation and the same depends upon his right to earn livelihood through which the basic necessaries of the life are fulfilled.

3.The prosecution filed counter and the brief contents of it are as follows: (I) The FIR No.181/2017 Dt.11-05-2017 was registered based on a written complaint Dt.11-05-2017 filed by the Income Tax Office concerned for the offence under sections 120(B), 420, 465, 468 & 471 r/w 34 of IPC against one Sh. Vaddi Mahesh and others on the ground that they created false and forged documents and used them as genuine documents and made transactions in various banks fraudulently and caused loss to Government of India by transferring Rs.569 Crores in Foreign Exchange i.e., by transferring the amounts to Singapore, Hong Kong and China based on the bogus documents. The Investigation was conducted under P.M.L. Act, 2002 against the accused persons. The Investigation reveals that huge cash was deposited in some of the bank accounts of companies/firms relating to Vaddi Mahesh and funds to the tune of approximately 1500 crores and they were sent to abroad as “Foreign Outward Remittance”. Vaddi Mahesh admitted that he transferred funds to a tune of Rs.1500 Crores based on forged documents to various foreign companies located in China, Hong Kong and Singapore. One Chellathurai Maheswaran, Director of Singapore Companies i.e., M/s. SRV Group International Pte Ltd and M/s. Wow Deals Pte Ltd, received funds from the shell companies of Vaddi Mahesh in India and he was summoned under section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and his statement was recorded. Scrutiny of the bank account statements of SRV Group International Limited with OCBC Bank, Singapore revealed that funds received in the bank accounts of M/s. SRV Group International Ltd., Singapore from Indian Companies of Vaddi Majesh were further transferred to bank account of M/s. Bhav Technology China Limited owned by Deepak Agarwal/petitioner.

3 MSJ Court, VSP

Crl.M.P.No.831/2023

(II) The petitioner/Deepak Agarwal appeared before the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Visakhapatnam and gave his statement under section 50 (2) & 50 (3) of P.M.L.Act, 2002. The investigation reveals that Rs.317 Crores were sent to

Hong Kong based company namely M/s. United Hill China Limited, Hong Kong as

shown in the counter. The statement shows that in the year 2016, M/s. Bhave Technologies China purchased television sets from his uncle Bhimendra Kumar Goyal and sold them to AL Mohammed, Dubai Buyer. Scrutiny of documents reveal that the funds were transferred from his company i.e., M/s. Bhav Technologies China Limited to M/s. Swiss Fox Pte Ltd of Rs.13,83,340/- which are more than six times with the value of the goods. He further stated that he does not remember the value of goods purchased from M/s. Swiss Fox Pte Ltd. The Investigation reveals that the petitioner/Deepak Agarwal was acted as an Authorized signatory to the bank account of M/s. United Hill China Limited which received huge inward remittances to a tune of Rs.317.60 Crores from the shell companies of Vaddi Mahesh in India and he had provided the bank account of his company i.e., M/s. Bhav Technology China Limited to his uncle namley Bhimendra Kumar Goyal for laundering the proceeds of Crime. The petitioner was arrested on 22-02-2021 at 08:00 PM and was produced before the Court on 23-02-2021 and was enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. for the offence of money laundering on the ground that he had assisted to one B.K.Goyal in laundering the proceeds of crime and the case was numbered as S.C.No.125/2021 and the petitioner was arrayed as A23.

(III)The money laundering offences are grave offences affecting economic interest of the country posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. The prosecution referred the judgment in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 929 in the counter including other decisions.

(IV)The Court granted permission to A22 in S.C.125/2021 to travel to Singapore for 45 days with a condition that the petitioner should take a notarized undertaking that he would attend each and every adjournment after 45 days vide order Dt.17-12-2022 in Crl.MP.No.606/2022. Further A22/Chellathurai Maheswaran has not returned to India and seeking further relaxation. The prosecution relied upon a case held in between ABDUL KADIR NAJMUDIN SATHAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA/ 4 MSJ Court, VSP

Crl.M.P.No.831/2023

C.SIASANKARAN Vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR by praying the Court not to allow the petitioner to travel when the proceedings are pending.

4.Now the points for determination are:

(i) Whether the petitioner can be permitted to travel abroad for

earning his livelihood and to stay in abroad for a period of 60 days

as prayed for ?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek direction against the

Investigating Officer to give 30 days prior notice as and when he

commences investigation ?

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

6.Perused the contents of the petition and the counter filed by the prosecution. Both the counsel for petitioner/A23 and Special Public Prosecutor for Directorate of Enforcement, Visakhapatnam reaffirmed the contents of the petition and the counter respectively on all the material particulars and to avoid repetition and the same are not discussed in detail. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner requires permission to travel foreign country i.e., to China and to stay there for 60 days, as his livelihood has been affected.

7. By way of reply, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that earlier also one of the accused was granted permission to travel abroad and he violated the conditions imposed by the Court. He further argued that only after issuance look out notice to petitioner, he filed the present petition and that he cannot be permitted to travel abroad.

8.The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a case held in between PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and another in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.648/2020 SLP (Crl.) No.3420/2020 wherein the Honourable Apex Court held as follows : “There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre- condition of securing prior permission before traveling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail.” 5 MSJ Court, VSP

Crl.M.P.No.831/2023

The Hon’ble Apex Court further held as follows: “This Court has passed multiple orders previously allowing an accused enlarged on bail to travel abroad. In Ganpati Ramnath Vs. State of Bihar, this Court allowed an accused-applicant to travel abroad for medical treatment, modifying its earlier bail order, noting that the applicant had travelled abroad on the ground of medical necessity on six occasions with the permission of the Court and had returned. In K.Mohammed V. The State of Kerala, this Court allowed the accused- appellant to travel abroad to meet in the exigencies of a family situation.” The counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a case held in between PARVIN JUNEJA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, wherein the Honourable High Court of Delhi held as follows: “The personal liberty of a person has to be balanced with that of any condition imposed on him by a Court of law for the purpose of securing his attendance and attending the proceedings lest he is not available to face trial”.

9.The Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted bail to the petitioner/ Deepak Agarwal and directed the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID Regional Office, Visakhapatnam twice a month i.e., on second and sixteenth of every month between 10:00 A.M. and 01:00 P.M., and also directed that the petitioner shall not leave the country without obtaining prior permission from the concerned Court.

10.The Directorate of Enforcement registered a case against the present petitioner and others in Crime No.ECIR/03/VKSZO/2017 for the offence under sections 120(B), 420, 465, 468 & 471 r/w 34 of IPC alleging that one Vaddi Mahesh and others created false and forged documents and entered into transactions through various banks and the petitioner revealed that an amount of Rs.317 Crores was sent to Hong Kong based companies i.e., M/s. United Hill China Limited, Hong Kong and the scrutiny of various documents reveal that Rs.13,83,340/- was transferred from M/s. Bhav Tehcnologies China to M/s. Swiss Fox Pte Limited. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that if the petitioner is granted permission to travel abroad, it is difficult to secure his presence. The case was already numbered as S.C.No.125/2021 and it is coming up for appearance of parties. The contention of the petitioner is that he has to stay in China to earn his livelihood and as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA Vs. STATE 6 MSJ Court, VSP

Crl.M.P.No.831/2023

OF MAHARASHTRA in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.648/2020 SLP (Crl.) No.3420/2020, the right of the petitioner to travel abroad is an integral part of his right to personal property. The petitioner filed copy of passport which shows that he is a citizen of India and he traveled to China, Kambodia, Dubai, Hong Kong on account of his business and reached India on 18-01-2020. The counsel for petitioner represented that the petitioner has been staying in India on account of the conditions imposed by the Honourable High Court of A.P. and he filed the present application seeking permission so as to travel China to stay there for two months to earn his livelihood and that the petitioner would return without fail India. Since the petitioner undertakes to comply the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and as the petitioner filed intimation slip of pre-arrival registration of Indian Internationals and the registration date is shown as 3rd September, 2023 and the registration valid till 03rd March of 2024 and as the counsel represented that the petitioner may be permitted to travel China, this Court is inclined to allow the petition by imposing certain conditions as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PARVIN JUNEJA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, Dt.09-08-2023.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed by permitting the petitioner/A23 to travel to abroad i.e., to China and he is permitted to stay there for 60 days and he shall furnish entire itinerary regarding his travel and stay in China before this Court prior to travel to abroad/China. The petitioner shall furnish FDR for Rs.1 Lakh. The period of 60 days commences from the date of his travel from India and he shall return to India within two months from the date of travel and he shall give an undertaking that he will attend before the Court on each and every adjournment after 60 days and the petitioner shall file E-ticket and copy of passport containing the entry with regard to his visit upon his return. The petitioner shall furnish his mobile number and E-mail ID including the mobile number going to be operated in China, at the time of furnishing FDR, which shall be kept operational at all times during the time of his visit to China. The details referred above shall be informed to the Investigating Officer concerned.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him corrected and pronounced

by me on this 16th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-XXXXXX

Metropolitan Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam

II ADSJ COURT, VSP

Crl. RP.6/2023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi, II Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, this the 11th day of July, 2023

Crl.R.P.No.6/2023

Between:

Killo Jyothamma, D/o Madhusudhanarao, W/o Killo Deva Das, Hindu, resident of Kantabamsuguda Gramam, Araku Valley Mandal, ASR District.

...Revision Petitioner/Owner of the property

And:

The State of A.P., through SHO, Chinthapalli Police Station represented by its Public Prosecutor.

...Respondent/Complainant

This Revision Petition has come up on 10-07-2023 for hearing

before me in the presence of Sri K.Appala Naidu & Sri P.Balaji, Advocates for

the petitioner and Sri Pydi Papa Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for State- Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.The revision petitioner is the petitioner in the trial court who preferred this revision being aggrieved by the orders passed in Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition No.463/2023 dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court at Chintapalli and the brief case of the petitioner who filed

this petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. is as follows:

The respondent/police registered a case against the accused for the offences under sections 395, 397,419,170,171,120-B r/w 149 of IPC in

Cr.No.4/2023 of Chintapalli Police Station and seized the petitioner’s vehicle i.e. Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI BSIZ motor car bearing No.AP 31 DA 2220 and it is in the custody of the police. The petitioner is in no way connected with the case and she is the absolute owner of Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI BSIZ motor car bearing No.AP 31 DA 2220 and so, she is entitled to get the same.

II ADSJ COURT, VSP

Crl. RP.6/2023 2

She requires the vehicle to attend agricultural operations as she resides at

Araku and the vehicle was purchased by her in her name. She undertakes to produce the vehicle as and when directed.

2.The SHO, Chintapalli has not filed the counter.

3.Having heard the rival contentions of the petitioner and the Asst.Public

Prosecution, the learned trial court dismissed the petition on 15.05.2023.

4.Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial court, the revision petitioner preferred the revision on the following grounds:

The learned trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that as the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, it is difficult to secure the property at the time of trial. The petitioner is the owner of the property i.e.

Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI BSIZ motor car bearing No.AP 31 DA 2220 having purchased the same for valuable consideration and she uses the vehicle for transport purpose for her livelihood. The petitioner came to know that the vehicle was seized by the police on 19.01.2023. She filed petition under section 457 of Cr.P.c. and the same was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court did not taken into consideration the ownership details of the petitioner who is not an accused in the said crime. The vehicle is in the police station for the last six months. The petitioner is not able to earn her livelihood. The petitioner referred the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of

Allahabad in Ajai Singh vs. Nathi Lal reported in 1978 – Cri.L.J.629 [the legal position not furnished].

5.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the interim custody of the vehicle?

II ADSJ COURT, VSP

Crl. RP.6/2023 3

2. To what relief?

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Addl.Public Prosecutor.

7. POINT NO.1: The learned counsel for the petitioner reaffirmed the contentions of the petitioner during the course of his arguments in all material particulars and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner may be given direction not to alter the vehicle features.

8.The trial court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under section 457 of Cr.P.c. in Cr.No.4/2023 on the ground that as the case is triable by the Sessions Court, it is difficult to secure the vehicle at the time of trial. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the property.

The crime was registered in the year 2023. There is no likelihood of disposal of the case in near future even if it is committed to the Court of Sessions.

The vehicle bearing No.AP 31 DA 2220 was seized in Cr.No.4/2023 and the petitioner is a third party to the proceedings. The petitioner filed copy of certificate of registration showing that she is the owner of the vehicle

Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI BSIZ motor car bearing No.AP 31 DA 2220. If the vehicle is retained in the police station, its engine gets damaged or it becomes defunct. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the accused is the owner of the property. Admittedly the petitioner who is a third party to the proceedings is the owner of the property. certainly, she is entitled to protect her property from being damaged as the property becomes defunct by keeping the same in the police station. Hence, Point

No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitled to seek the interim custody of the vehicle i.e. Maruthi Swift Dezire

VDI BSIZ motor car bearing No.AP 31 DA 2220.

II ADSJ COURT, VSP

Crl. RP.6/2023 4

9. POINT NO.2: In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the orders dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintapalli in Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition No.463/2023. The committal court i.e. Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Chintappli is directed to give interim custody of the

vehicle to the petitioner on her executing self bond for Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Chintapalli. The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle or

transfer its ownership. She shall not change the physical features of the vehicle and the petitioner is directed to give an undertaking before the committal court that she would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the committal court before the sessions court concerned. The property shall be given to the petitioner on furnishing original RC after taking photographs of the vehicle and obtaining the signatures of the petitioner on the reverse side of the photographs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me, in the open court, this the 11th day of July, 2023.

SD/- SIRIPURAPU SREEDEVI

II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Copy to:

1) The Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintapalli

2) The Revision Petitioner

1 MSJ Court, VSP Common order in

Crl.M.P.No.1500/2023 and 1555/2023

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-cum-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER NDPS ACT: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC/ Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences Under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, the 18 th day of July, 2023

COMMON ORDER in CRL.M.P.No.1500/2023 and 1555/2023

(Cr.No.131/2023 of IV town police station, Visakhapatnam city )

Between:

1. Shridhar Harikrishna Patange, S/o Harikrishna, 24 yrs, R/o near Kalunkamatha Mandal, Dabaljin old Jalria, Jalna District, Maharashtra State … petitioner in Crl.MP.1500/2023/A1

2. Datta Nadh Prasad Pawar, S/o late Nath Prasad Pawar, Hindu, 23 yrs, R/ o House No.9, Pangarkar Dagar Colony, Jalna District, Maharashtra … petitioner in Crl.MP.1555/2023/ A2

And: The State represented by Station House Officer, IV town police station, Visakhapatnam city

...Respondent/Complainant

These petitions came before me on 14.7.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Gubbala Swathi and Sri P.Srihari, advocates for petitioner/ A1 in Crl.MP.1500/2023 and Sri K.V.S.S.Rahul Babu and Sri T.Parvathi, advocates for A2 in Crl.MP.1555/2023 and of Sri Kandregula Jagadheeswara Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

C O M M O N O R D E R

1.These bail applications are filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., praying the court to enlarge them on regular bail in Cr.No.131/2023 of IV town police station, Visakhapatnam city for the offence punishable under Sec.25 of Arms Act and the brief case of the Prosecution, is as follows;

2.On 31.05.2023 based on the instructions given by Superior officers to conduct lodge checking, the Inspector of police, IV town police station, Visakhapatnam, secured the presence of mediators and rushed to Lakshmi Royal Lodge besides Arch, Railway New Colony and checked room No.105. When he knocked the door of room No.105 so as to search the room, he found three persons and apprehended the petitioner in Crl.MP.1500/2023. Then the Inspector searched his bag and found that he is in possession of country made steel pistol under suspicious circumstances. He seized the said country made steel pistol from his possession in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report. He further confessed that his friend Dutt Pawar 2 MSJ Court, VSP Common order in

Crl.M.P.No.1500/2023 and 1555/2023

assigned an assignment to him to hand over the country made steel pistol to an individual at Puri, Odisha State and thereby he would get Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly he started at Jalna Railway Station to go to Puri along with five other friends and that he was caught at Lakshmi Royal Lodge. He was arrested as he is in possession of country made steel pistol without any license. On 13.6.2023 based on credible information the Inspector of police, IV town police station, Visakhapatnam, secured the presence of mediators and rushed to parking place near Railway Station, Visakhapatnam and found one person who tried to abscond by looking at police. With the assistance of his staff he apprehended him and based on his confessional statement, he was arrested as he was involved in Cr.No.131/2023.

3.Notice given.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 in Crl.MP.1500/2023 argued that the petitioner used to do rod bending works in Iron and Steel Company and he came to Visakhapatnam to attend a job interview and when he came to the room in lodge, he did not observe the alleged pistol in the room. The counsel further argued that earlier customers who took the room in the lodge might have forgotten to take the pistol along with them. He also argued that the alleged pistol does not belong to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner2/A2 in Crl.MP.1555/2023 argued that based on the confessional statement made by A1, the petitioner/A2 was arrested and the alleged confession made by the petitioner is invalid. The counsel further argued that A2 has no acquaintance with A1 and he is in no way connected with the case.

5.By way of reply learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that A1 and A2 are residents of Maharashtra State. He further argued that investigation is pending.

6.CD discloses that this a case of seizure of country made steel pistol from the possession of A1 by the Inspector of police, IV town police station when he conducted search of Lakshmi Royal Lodge on 31.5.2023 and seizure of country made steel pistol from the possession of A1. A1 also said to have confessed about involvement of A2 and the contention of A2 is that he has no acquaintance with A1. So far LW.1 was examined. As investigation is pending and in view of gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage in Crl.MP.Nos.1500/2023 and 1555/2023.

7.In the result, Crl.MP.Nos.1500/2023 and 1555/2023 are dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-1, corrected and

pronounced by me on this 18th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- S.Sreedevi,

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC/ Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam

1 CRLMP:1657/2023 in CR.NO.50/2023 I AMSJC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi, I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam Tuesday, this the 11th day of July,2023

Crl.M.P.No.1657/2023

(in Crime No.50/2023 of Maharanipeta Police Station)

Between:

1. Saripilli Sai Kumar, S/o late Srinivasa Rao, aged 27 years, Yadava by caste, residing at D.No.14-34-2, Kolluru Mansion, Angati Dibba, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam City.

2. Saripilli Swathi, W/o Sai Kumar, aged 28 years, rest – do -.

… Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

And:

SHO, Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

…Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before me on 10-07-2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Eswar Rao Polisetty, Advocate for the petitioners/A1 & A2 and of Sri Pydi Papa Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent and having considered the matter till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 & A2 under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail for the offence under sections 307 r/w 109, 509 of IPC in

Crime No.50/2023 of Maharanipeta Police Station and the brief case of the

Prosecution, is as follows;

2.The case of the prosecution is that the informant Seelam Kamala Rao and her husband Seela Mohan Rao have been working in Sri Venkata Laxmi Flour Mill owned by Shiva Kumar and every day they attend the mill at 9 A.M. and after closing the mill they reach their home by 8.30 P.M. A1 Saripilli Sai Kumar has been residing near the flour mill where the informant and her husband have been working. A1 used to park his motorcycle and auto near flour mill by the side of the 2 CRLMP:1657/2023 in CR.NO.50/2023 I AMSJC/VSP road. If any other person parks his vehicle, he quarrels with that person. On 17.06.2023 while the informant and her husband were attending their work at mill and at about 7.30 P.M. one of the customers came to mill for grinding flour and parked his bike near the mill. A1 who is the husband of A2 and A2 quarreled with the informant and her husband for not informing the customer not to park his bike in the place where he used to park his vehicle and abused them in filthy language and threatened to kill them. On 18.06.2023 when the informant and her husband came to the mill and while they were working at about 2 P.M. A1 came to the locality in a drunken state, quarreled with them, abused them in filthy language and A1 beat the husband of the informant indiscriminately and threatened to kill them. A1 directed A2 to bring knife and when A2 brought the knife, A1 entered into the mill being armed with knife and assaulted the husband of the informant and cut his neck with an intention to kill him on account of previous disputes and A2 abutted A1 in causing injuries to the husband of the informant who sustained cut injury on his neck and on account of heavy bleeding she got her husband shifted to

KGH.

3.Notice given.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 & A2 argued that the petitioner were falsely implicated in this case and that A1 got aged mother who has been suffering from kidney problem and the assistance of A1 & A2 is required so as to take care of mother of A1. The counsel further argued that injured was discharged from KGH and

A1 is also suffering from neuro problem.

5.By way of reply, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that this is a case of causing injury on the neck of the husband of the complainant by using a knife by A1 being supplied by A2 who is his wife. He further argued that the investigation is pending.

6.CD discloses that this is a case of causing injuries to the husband of the informant by A1 and abusing the informant and her husband in filthy language and 3 CRLMP:1657/2023 in CR.NO.50/2023 I AMSJC/VSP threatening to kill them as one of the customers of the mill parked his vehicle where A1 used to park his vehicle. CD further shows that so far the prosecution examined eight witnesses. In view of the gravity of offence and as investigation is pending, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A1 & A2 at this stage.

7.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 11th day of July,2023.

Sd/- Siripurapu Sreedevi

I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam

1

Common Order in Crl.Mps 1816/2023 & 1751/2023 in Cr.No.84/2023

I AMSJC VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi,

I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Visakhapatnam

Thursday, this the 13th day of July, 2023.

Crl.M.P.No.1816/2023

Between:

Appikonda Jagadish @ Nani, S/o Anjani Pradeep, aged 24 years, Kapu by caste, Glass Mazac works, R/at Beside Ganesh Medical Center, Balaji nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

… Petitioner/A1

Crl.M.P.No.1751/2023

Between:

Kandi Siva @ Mari, S/o Shankara Rao, aged 21 years, Kapu by caste, Student, Residing at D.No.12-104, Balaji Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

… Petitioner/A2

And:

State of A.P. represented by the Addl.Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam through the SHO, Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondent/Complainant

These petitions are coming on before me on 13-07-2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri Rayi Srinivasa Rao & Sri M.Ravi Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner/A1 in Crl.MP.1816/2023 and Sri Bandi Venkata Naresh Babu & Sri Karakani Varaprasad, Advocates for the petitioner/A2 in Crl.MP.1751/2023 and of Sri Pydi Papa Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent and having considered the matter till this day, this Court made the following:

C O M M O N O R D E R

1. The Petitioner/A1 filed Crl.MP.1816/2023 and the petitioner/A2 filed

Crl.MP.1751/2023 praying the court to enlarge them on bail for the alleged offence

under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.84/2023 of Arilova Police station and the brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

The informant Irusumandala Bangarayya is resident of Arilova and his younger son Irusumandala Adinarayana used to earn his livelihood by working as an auto driver.

One Appikonda Jagadish/A1 who is also residing in that area used to move closely with his son and some disputes arose in between them at wine shop and the informant

2

Common Order in Crl.Mps 1816/2023 & 1751/2023 in Cr.No.84/2023

I AMSJC VSP

came to know that for about 2 or 3 times disputes arose in between his son and

Jagadish. On 02.05.2023 the informant went to Ravada village, Bhogapuram to attend festival and his son Adinarayana stayed back at the house saying that his friend invited him for the festival. On 03.05.2023 at 6 A.M. the neighbour of the informant

Sk.Saleema called and informed the informant that some unknown persons caused the death of the son of the informant Adinarayana near sulabh complex, Balajinagar at about 1 A.M. by beating him with sticks. The informant came to Visakhapatnam and on enquiry he came to know that Appikonda Jagadish/A1 and Kandula Shiva/A2 quarreled with his son near sulabh complex, Balajinagar and later both of them beat him indiscriminately with sticks with an intention to cause his death and thereby killed him.

2.Notice given.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 argued that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past more than two months and that the material part of investigation has been completed. The counsel further argued that there are no disputes in between the petitioner and the deceased as shown in the complaint and that he petitioner was falsely implicated.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 argued that the deceased was a rowdy sheeter and somebody caused the death of the deceased and while the petitioner was going through that place he was implicated in this case. The counsel further argued that the petitioner has no acquaintance with the deceased and there are no previous disputes in between the petitioner and the deceased as alleged in the complaint. He also argued that the material part of the investigation has been completed.

5.By way of reply the learned Addl.PP argued that the petitioners caused the death of the deceased by beating him indiscriminately and that A1 is having past criminal record as he is involved in Cr.No.431/2021 and he threatened to kill the family members of the deceased.

6.CD discloses that this is a case of causing death of the deceased by using sticks by the petitioners and so far LWs1 to 5 were examined. In view of gravity of offence and as the investigation is pending, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A1 & A2 at this stage.

3

Common Order in Crl.Mps 1816/2023 & 1751/2023 in Cr.No.84/2023

I AMSJC VSP

7.In the result, the petitions in Crl.MP.1816/2023 and Crl.MP.1751/2023 are dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, on this the 13th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- Siripurapu Sreedevi

I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam