T.kesava

1

APAN000035882026

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIB [PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum-

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: Sri T. Kesava

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Saturday, the 16 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.430/2026

(Cr.No.11/2026 of Singanamala P.S.) Between:

Boya Mandla Sai Kiran @ Jutlu, age 21 Years,(A5) S/o M. Chandra, R/o Veerepalli Village, Peddavaduguru Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. …Petitioner/Accused No.5

And

State S.H.O. of Singanamala P.S.…Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Sreekantha Reddy, Sri C. Babu Prasad, Advocates for the Petitioner/Accused No.5 and the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and after hearing both sides this Court delivered the following:-

// O R D E R //

This is the 2nd bail application filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.5 under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge them on bail.

2)Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, the accused

No.1 and 2 are sons of Accused No.3 namely Dandora Lakshmi Devi and 2 they belonged to S.C. Madiga Community. They are the sons and first wife of late Dandora Nallappa. Dandora Nallappa had contacted second marriage with Deceased No.2/Dandora Yellamma and through her he be got two sons, among them the Deceased No.1/Dandora Ambedkar @ Chinna is one of their sons. After the death of Dandora Nallappa there arose differences between widows and their children with regard to share in the agriculture lands and house property of Dandora Nallappa. Keeping the said dispute in mind, the accused No.1 to 3 conspired with Accused Nos.4 and 5 namely., Boya

Meenuga Sreenivasulu @ Srinivas and Mandla Sai Kiran @ Jutlu to eliminate

Deceased Nos.1 and 2. On the night of 02.02.2026 at about 10:30 PM the petitioner and Accused No.1 to 4 came to victim’s residence in a white Swift

Desire Car and initiated quarrel with the Deceased Nos.1 and 2. They attacked Deceased No.1 with sickle and sticks causing his immediate death.

When Deceased No.2 i.e., Dandora Yellamma tried to save herself by hiding, she was searched and brutally attacked with sticks and sickles, resulting her death and her head was also decapitated. Then the Petitioner and the

Accused No.1 to 4 fled away from the scene of offence. The petitioner and the Accused No.1 to 4 with a premeditated plan entered into the village and killed Deceased Nos.1 and 2 brutally and in gruesome manner creating shock and terror among the villagers. Then based on the complaint of VRA of

Tarimala Village, the S.H.O Singanamalia P.S registered a case in

Cr.No.11/2026 for the offences under Secs.103 (1) r/w.3 (5) of BNS and investigated into the matter. Then Investigating Officer i.e., Deputy

Superintendent of Police during course of his investigation arrested the petitioner and the Accused No.1 to 4 and on 19.02.2026 on observing all procedural formalities, he forwarded them to the Hon’ble Spl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Excise), Ananthapuramu for remand and

since then the petitioners have been in judicial custody.

3

3) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in this case. There are no specific overtacts attributed against the petitioner andonly based on confessional statement of Accused Nos.1 to 3, the Petitioner/Accused No.5 has been falsely implicated and he was arrested. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 19.02.2026. Further material part of investigation has been completed and the petitioner would abide by the conditions that may be imposed in the event of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed for enlarging him on bail.

4)The learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and inter-alia would contend that the Accused No. 1 to 3 and the deceased No.1 and 2 are close relatives and there were land disputes among them for long time. Keeping the same in mind the accused No.1 to 3 conspired with the Accused Nos.4 and 5 and committed murder of

Deceased Nos.1 and 2 in a gruesome manner. In such a situation, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is every possibility of the petitioner fleeing away from justice and also there are chances of tampering the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further argued that taking the gravity of the offence and the terror that was caused due to the offence in the village and also in the society, it is not fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this application.

5)Heard both parties. Perused the record.

6) Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.5 is entitled for bail as prayed for?”

7) P O I N T:- As can be seen from the record, it is evident that on the report of VRA of Tarimala Village on 03.02.2026 the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Singanamala P.S registered a case in Cr.No.11/2026 for the offences punishable under Section 103 (1) r/w.3 (5) of BNS against the accused No.1 4 and 2 initially. The report of VRA disclosed that the Deceased Nos.1 and 2 were found murdered and the head of the Deceased No.2 was decapitated.

Then taking the gravity of the offence into account, the Inspector of Police,

Singanamala Circle took up the investigation and examined the witnesses and also conducted the Inquest over the dead bodies of Deceased Nos.1 and

2. On 18.02.2026 he arrested the Petitioner/Accused No.5 and accused No.5 under separate arrest and seizure panchanama and recorded his confessional statement. Then on observing procedural formalities, he forwarded to Hon’ble Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Proh. & Excise),

Anathapuramu for judicial remand. On considering the material placed before the Hon’ble the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Proh. & Excise),

Anathapuramu remanded the Petitioner to the judicial custody on 19.02.2026.

8)The material collected during the investigation provide that one

Dandora Nallappa resident of S.C Colony, Tarimela Village of Singanamala

Mandal has two wives namely., Dandora Lakshmi Devi (Accused No.3) and

Dandora Yellamma (Deceased No.2/ 2nd wife). Through his first wife he has two sons i.e., Accused Nos.1 and 2 and through his second wife, he has two sons i.e., Deceased No.1/Dandora Ambedkar @ Chinna and another. After the death of the deceased Nallappa, there arose differences between two widows and their sons with regard to agricultural land and house property left by the deceased Nallappa. In that connection, the accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with Accused Nos.4 and 5 and on 02.02.2026 at about 10:30 PM in pursuance of their plan came to the house of the deceased in a white

Swift Desire Car and attacked the Deceased No.1 with a sickle and caused his death. When Deceased No.2 i.e., Dandora Yellamma tried to save herself by hiding, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 followed her and hacked her to death and also decapitated her head. The investigation reveal that the accused No.2 took the decapitated head of the Deceased No.2 and displayed the same in the streets of the village, causing terror among the villagers, then all the 5 petitioners went away in the same car. The investigation further reveals that the Petitioner/Accused No.5 caught the hands and legs of the Deceased

No.1/ Dandora Ambedkar @ Chinna tightly enabling the other accused to attack him to death. The material further provides that the petitioner actively participated in conspiracy with the other accused and also he participated in committing murder of Deceased Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9) The material collected during investigation reveal that the acts committed by the Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the petitioner are of extreme diabolic and in gruesome manner, causing terror and asserting authority of the Accused. The display of decapitated head in the village is premeditated act of the extreme violence to inflict the maximum terror and assert the authorities. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

The witnesses may not come forward to disclose the facts acquainted by them with regard to incident due to fear of the petitioner. Further as the incident has caused severe terror and fear among the public in the village and the society, this court is opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10) As per material on record, the investigation is still pending and the police yet to file charge sheet. In view of the observations recorded to supra, it is not fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. As such this application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the Petitioners.

11) In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of May, 2026.

6

Sd/- T. Kesava

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu.

1

APAN000035872026

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

[PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum-

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: Sri T. Kesava

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Saturday, the 16 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.429/2026

(Cr.No.11/2026 of Singanamala P.S.) Between:

1) Madiga Dandora Jagajeeva Ram @ Mohan, aged 26 Yrs., (A1) S/o late M.Nallappa, r/o SC Colony, Tarimela Village, Singanamala Mandal.

2. Madiga Dandora Omkar, aged 21 Years, (A2) S/o Late M. Nallappa, R/o SC Colony, Tarimela Village, Singanamala Mandal.

3. Madiga Dandora Lakshmi Devi, aged 50 years, (A3) S/o late M. Nallappa, R/o SC Colony, Tarimela Village, Singanamala Mandal.

4. Boya Meenuga Sreenivasulu, aged 27 Years, (A4) S/o late Rangappa, R/o D.No.2-178, Illuru Village, Garladinne Mandal.…Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4.

And

State S.H.O. of Singanamala P.S.…Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.K. Chandrasekhar, sri S. Shameer Basha, Sri B. Shaikshavali, Advocates for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the 2 learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and after hearing both sides this Court delivered the following:-

// O R D E R //

This is the 3rd bail application filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge them on bail.

2)Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners 1 and 2 are sons of Petitioner No.3 namely Dandora Lakshmi Devi and they belonged to S.C. Madiga Community. The petitioner No.1 to 3 are the sons and first wife of late Dandora Nallappa. Dandora Nallappa had contacted second marriage with Deceased No.2/Dandora Yellamma and through her he be got two sons, among them the Deceased No.1/Dandora Ambedkar @

Chinna is one of their sons. After the death of Dandora Nallappa there arose differences among widows and their children with regard to share in the agriculture lands and house property of Dandora Nallappa. Keeping said dispute in mind, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 conspired with Accused Nos.4 and 5 namely., Boya Meenuga Sreenivasulu @ Srinivas and Mandla Sai

Kiran @ Jutlu to eliminate Deceased Nos.1 and 2. On the night of 02.02.2026 at about 10:30 PM the petitioners and the Accused No.5 came to victim’s residence in a white Swift Desire Car and initiated quarrel with the

Deceased Nos.1 and 2. They attacked Deceased No.1 with sickle and sticks causing his immediate death. When Deceased No.2 i.e., Dandora Yellamma tried to save herself by hiding, she was searched and brutally attacked with sticks and sickles, resulting her death and her head was also decapitated.

Then the Petitioners and the Accused No.5 fled away from the scene of offence. The petitioners and the Accused No.5 with a premeditated plan entered into the village and killed the Deceased Nos.1 and 2 brutally and in gruesome manner creating shock and terror in the villagers. Then based on the complaint of VRA of Tarimala Village, the S.H.O Singanamalia P.S registered a case in Cr.No.11/2026 for the offences under Secs.103 (1) r/w.3 3 (5) of BNS and investigated into the matter. Then Investigating Officer i.e.,

Deputy Superintendent of Police during course of his investigation arrested the petitioners and the Accused No.5 on 19.02.2026 and on observing all procedural formalities, he forwarded them to the Hon’ble Spl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Excise), Ananthapuramu for remand and

since then the petitioners have been in judicial custody.

3) The learned counsel for petitioners argued that the petitioners are innocents, they have been falsely implicated in this case. There are no specific overtacts attributed against the petitioners 3 and 4 and on suspicion only they were arrested. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 19.02.2026. Further material part of investigation has been completed and the petitioners would abide by the conditions that may be imposed in the event of their release on bail. Therefore, he prayed for enlarging the petitioners on bail.

4)The learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and inter-alia would contend that the petitioner No. 1 to 3 and deceased No. 1 and 2 are closed relatives and there were land disputes among them for long time. Keeping the same in mind the petitioners 1 to 3 conspired with the Accused Nos.4 and 5 and committed murder of Deceased

Nos.1 and 2 in a gruesome manner. The Petitioner No.2 displayed the decapitated head of the Deceased No.2 publicly in the village, causing extreme terror in the village. In such a situation, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail there is every possibility of the petitioners fleeing away from justice and also there are chances of tampering the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further argued that taking the gravity of the offence, the terror and fear that was caused due to the offence in the village and also in the society, the petitioners do deserve for grant of bail.

5)Heard both parties. Perused the record.

4

6) Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the Petitioners / Accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for bail as prayed for?”

7) P O I N T:- As can be seen from the record, it is evident that on the report of VRA of Tarimala Village on 03.02.2026 the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Singanamala P.S registered a case in Cr.No.11/2026 for the offences punishable under Section 103 (1) r/w.3 (5) of BNS against the Petitioner

Nos.1 and 2 initially. The report of VRA disclosed that the Deceased Nos.1 and 2 were found murdered and the head of the Deceased No.2 was decapitated. Then taking the gravity of the offence into account, the Inspector of Police, Singanamala Circle took up the investigation and examined the witnesses and also conducted the Inquest over the dead bodies of Deceased

Nos.1 and 2. On 18.02.2026 he arrested the petitioners and the Accused

No.5 under two separate arrest and seizure panchanamas and recorded their confessional statements. Then on observing the procedural formalities, he forwarded the petitioners to Hon’ble Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Proh. & Excise), Anathapuramu for judicial remand. On considering the material placed before her, the Hon’ble the Special Judicial First Class

Magistrate (Proh. & Excise), Anathapuramu remanded the petitioners to the

judicial custody on 19.02.2026.

8)The material collected during the investigation provide that one

Dandora Nallappa resident of S.C Colony, Tarimela Village of Singanamala

Mandal has two wives namely., Dandora Lakshmi Devi (Accused No.3) and

Dandora Yellamma (Deceased/2nd wife). Through his first wife he has two sons i.e., Accused Nos.1 and 2 and through his second wife, he has two sons i.e., Deceased No.1/Dandora Ambedkar @ Chinna and another. After the death of Nallappa, there arose differences between two widows and their sons with regard to agricultural land and house property left by the deceased

Nallappa. In that connection, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 conspired with the 5

Accused Nos.4 and 5 and on 02.02.2026 at about 10:30 PM in pursuance of their plan came to the house of the deceased in a white

Swift Desire Car and attacked the Deceased No.1 with a sickle and caused his death. When Deceased No.2 i.e., Dandora Yellamma tried to save herself by hiding, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 followed her and hacked her to death and also decapitated her head. The investigation reveals gruesome act that the

Petitioner No.2 took the decapitated head of the Deceased No.2 and displayed the same in the streets of the village, causing terror among the villagers, then all the petitioners went away in the same car.

9) The material collected during investigation reveal that the acts committed by the petitioners are of extreme diabolic and in gruesome manner, causing terror and asserting authority of the Accused. The display of decapitated head in the village is premeditated act of the extreme violence to inflict the maximum terror and assert the authority. Under such circumstances, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The witnesses may not come forward to disclose the facts acquainted by them with regard to incident due to fear of the petitioners. Further as the incident has caused severe terror and fear among the public in the village and the society, this court is opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

10) As per material on record, the investigation is still pending and the police yet to file charge sheet. In view of the observations recorded to supra, it is not fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail. As such this application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the Petitioners.

11) In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of May, 2026.

6

Sd/- T. Kesava

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu.

1

APAN000035662026

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

[PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum-

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri T. Kesarva

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 14 th day of May, 2026

Cr.M.P.No.412/2026

IN

(Crl.M.P.No.39/2026 in Cr.No.250/2025 of Ananthapuramu II Town P.S) Between:

1. Mogali Satyanarayana Reddy (A1) aged about 45 years, S/o M. Hanumanthu Reddy, D.No.3-106, Thimmapuramu Village, Kambadur Mandal, Now residing at D.No.4-3-93, Janashakthi Nagar, Bellary Road, Anantapuramu Town.

2. Chinnagorla Sainath Reddy @ Chiyyedu Sainath Reddy (A2) S/o Late C. Rami Reddy, aged about 46 years, D.No. 5/54, Chiyyedu Village, Anantapuramu Mandal, Now residing at LB Colony, OPP. Market Yard, Anantapuramu Town.

… Petitioners/Accused

Nos.1 and 2. AND State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu II Town P.S. … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, Sri K. Sreenath, Advocates for the Petitioners/Accused 2

Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent/complainant, and after hearing both sides, this Court made the following:-

// ORDER //

This is an application filed u/s 483 (1) (b) of BNSS seeking to relax the

Condition No.1 imposed on petitioners under vide Crl.M.P.39/2026, dated 27.01.2026, that the petitioners shall appear before the SHO, Ananthapuramu

II Town PS on every Saturday in between 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M and give their attendance till filing of the charge-sheet.

2.The learned counsel for petitioners pleaded that since the date of releasing on bail they have been attending before the S.H.O of II Town PS,

Ananthapuramu on every Saturday between stipulated time. The entire investigation has been completed, but the police did not choose to file charge sheet. Taking the profession and livelihood of the petitioners into account, the condition No.1 imposed may be relaxed.

3.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed for relaxing the conditions as stated supra and vehemently argued that another crime has been registered against the petitioners for tampering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they are going to file application for cancellation of bail, if the conditions is relaxed, the petitioners fly away from justice and their presence cannot be secured during the time

4.Heard both parties. Perused the record.

5. Considering the submissions of both parties and material on record, it is clear that the FIR was registered on 23.11.2025 against the petitioners and they were arrested on 25.11.2025 and then they were released on bail on 27.01.2026. As per the orders stated to supra, this court directed the petitioners to appear before the S.H.O, II Town P.S, Ananthapuramu on every 3

Saturday in between 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM and to give attendance till filing of charge sheet.

6.Though the investigation officer has taken 6 months time, he has not filed charge sheet nor reported anything as to the progress of the case.

The petitioners cannot be suffered attending before the police station indefinitely. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to relax the condition No.1 imposed in Cr.M.P.39/2026 dated 27.01.2026.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the Condition No.1 imposed in Cr.M.P.39/2026 dated 27.01.2026 is hereby relaxed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- T. Kesava

Special Judge

for trial of cases under Scs/STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to:

Copy to the S.H.O. Ananthapuramu II Town P.S.

1

APAN000035672026

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

[PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum-

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri T. Kesarva

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 14 th day of May, 2026

Cr.M.P.No.413/2026

IN

(Crl.M.P.No. 1156/2025 in Cr.No.250/2025 of Ananthapuramu II Town P.S) Between:

Mogali Hanumantha Reddy, age 66 years, (A-3) S/o. Late Thippe Swamy, D.No. 2-11, Thimmapuramu Village, Kambadur Mandal, Now residing at D.No. 4-3-93, Janashakthi Nagar, Bellary Road, Anantapuramu Town.… Petitioner/Accused No.3 AND State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu II Town P.S. … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, Sri K. Sreenath, Advocates for the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/complainant, and after hearing both sides, this Court made the following:-

// ORDER //

2

This is an application filed u/s 483 (1) (b) of BNSS seeking to relax the

Condition No.1 imposed on petitioner under vide Crl.M.P.1156/2025, dated 06.01.2026, that the petitioner shall appear before the SHO, Ananthapuramu II

Town PS on every Saturday in between 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M and give his attendance till filing of the charge-sheet.

2.The learned counsel for petitioner pleaded that since the date of releasing on bail he has been attending before the S.H.O of II Town PS,

Ananthapuramu on every Saturday between stipulated time. The entire investigation has been completed, but the police did not choose to file charge sheet. Taking the profession and livelihood of the petitioner into account, the condition No.1 imposed may be relaxed.

3.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed for relaxing the conditions as stated supra and vehemently argued that another crime has been registered against the petitioner for tampering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they are going to file application for cancellation of bail, if the conditions is relaxed, the petitioner fly away from justice and his presence cannot be secured during the time.

4.Heard both parties. Perused the record.

5. Considering the submissions of both parties and material on record, it is clear that the FIR was registered on 23.11.2025 against the petitioner and he was arrested on 29.11.2025 and then he was released on bail on 06.01.2026. As per the orders stated to supra, this court directed the petitioner to appear before the S.H.O, II Town P.S, Ananthapuramu on every

Saturday in between 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM and to give attendance till filing of charge sheet.

6.Though the investigation officer has taken 6 months time, he has not filed charge sheet nor reported anything as to the progress of the case.

3

The petitioner cannot be suffered attending before the police station indefinitely. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to relax the condition No.1 imposed in Cr.M.P.1156/2025 dated 06.01.2026.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the Condition No.1 imposed in Crl.M.P.1156/2025, dated 06.01.2026 is hereby relaxed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- T. Kesava.

Special Judge

for trial of cases under Scs/STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to:

Copy to the S.H.O. Ananthapuramu II Town P.S.

1

APAN000035682026

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

[PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum-

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri T. Kesarva

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 14 th day of May, 2026

Cr.M.P.No.414/2026

IN

(Crl.M.P.No. 143/2026 in Cr.No.250/2025 of Ananthapuramu II Town P.S) Between:

Gonchi Venkata Ramana Reddy @ Ramana Reddy, (A-4) S/o. Late Gonchi Parvatha Reddy, aged about 58 years, D.No.3-25A, O.C. Colony, Hanakanahal, Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District. … Petitioner/Accused No.4.

AND

State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu II Town P.S. … Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, Sri K. Sreenath, Advocates for the Petitioner/Accused No.4 and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/complainant, and after hearing both sides, this Court made the following:-

// ORDER //

2

This is an application filed u/s 483 (1) (b) of BNSS seeking to relax the

Condition No.1 imposed on petitioner under vide Crl.M.P.143/2025, dated 05.03.2026, that the petitioner shall appear before the SHO, Ananthapuramu II

Town PS on every Saturday in between 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M and give his attendance till filing of the charge-sheet.

2.The learned counsel for petitioner pleaded that since the date of releasing on bail he has been attending before the S.H.O of II Town PS,

Ananthapuramu on every Saturday between stipulated time. The entire investigation has been completed, but the police did not choose to file charge sheet. Taking the profession and livelihood of the petitioner into account, the condition No.1 imposed may be relaxed.

3.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed for relaxing the conditions as stated supra and vehemently argued that another crime has been registered against the petitioner for tampering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they are going to file application for cancellation of bail, if the conditions is relaxed, the petitioner fly away from justice and his presence cannot be secured during the time

4.Heard both parties. Perused the record.

5. Considering the submissions of both parties and material on record, it is clear that the FIR was registered on 23.11.2025 against the petitioner and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on 05.03.2026. As per the orders stated to supra, this court directed the petitioner to appear

before the S.H.O, II Town P.S, Ananthapuramu on every Saturday in between

10:00 AM to 5:00 PM and to give attendance till filing of charge sheet.

6.Though the investigation officer has taken 6 months time, he has not filed charge sheet nor reported anything as to the progress of the case.

The petitioner cannot be suffered attending before the police station 3 indefinitely. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to relax the condition No.1 imposed in Cr.M.P.143/2025, dated 05.03.2026.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the Condition No.1 imposed in Crl.M.P.143/2025, dated 05.03.2026 is hereby relaxed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- T. Kesava

Special Judge

for trial of cases under Scs/STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to:

Copy to the S.H.O. Ananthapuramu II Town P.S.