Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi

1

APPR000007332024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt T.Rajya Lakshmi, I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC Prl. District Judge, Ongole

Thursday, on this the Twenty Third (23 rd ) Day of April, 2026

OS No.23 of 2024

Between:- Kale Sreenivasulu, S/o. Subbarao, age: 53 years, Hindu, R/o. Vallur Village,

Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. .... Plaintiff

And

1.Surabhi Subrahmanyam, S/o. Laxminarasaiah, age: 65 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.8-1-28 Upparapalem, Opp. Raghava Kalyana Mandapam, Nellore City, PSR Nellore District.

2.Sangubotla Mahalakshmamma, W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, age: 86 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.27-2-919, Opp. Ravi Sankar Rice Mill, AC Nagar, Nellore City, PSR Nellore District.

3.Avadhanam Srilakshamma, W/o. Subrahmanyam, age: 82 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.12-222, Banglaw Road, Porumamilla Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

2

4.Karumanchi Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Muralidhara Rao, age: 43 years, Hindu, R/o. Door No.9-25, Neelakantamvari Veedhi, Kanigiri town, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.

5.Karumanchi Venkata Muralidhara Rao, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, age: 60 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.9-25, Neelakantamvari Veedhi, Kanigiri Town, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.

6.Polla Subrahmanyam, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, age: 40 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.1-83, Near Chowdaramma Temple, Main Road, Veligandla Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

7.Chaganti Chinna Veera Reddy, S/o. Late Lakshmi Reddy, age: 60 years, Hindu, R/o. Door No.3-54, Valikuntla Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District.

8.Sura Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Late Narasa Reddy, age: 60 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.5-19, Gokulam Majara, Suravaripalli Road, Veligandla Village and Mandal of Prakasam District.

9.Medam Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, age: 49 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.8-5A, Gillellapadu Village, Kankanampadu Post, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District. …Defendants

This suit is coming on today before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A.Ramaiah, Counsel for plaintiff; Sri

K.Raghava Rao, Counsel for Defendants 4 to 9 and the suit is dismissed against D1 to D3 as not pressed, upon hearing both the counsels, on perusal of Mediation Report, Dt.22.04.2026 and other material available on record, this Court delivered the following:- 3

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed for Specific Performance of Possessory Sale

Agreement, Dt.18.02.2016, directing the Defendants 1 to 9 to execute regular Registered Sale Deed with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and if the defendants failed to do so, the same may be done through process of law.

2. Brief averments of the plaint is that, defendants 1 to 3 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land and they offered to sell the same for a valid consideration of Rs.51,00,000/- as bill contract and accordingly, the Defendants 1 to 3 received the entire sale consideration of Rs.51,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.02.2016 and duly executed Possessory Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe at Nellore City and later delivered possession of schedule property to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of schedule property and raising crops every year till now. Subsequent to the said sale agreement, the plaintiff has been demanding the defendants personally to obtain pattadar passbooks and title deed, get enter the land on online web land, execute regular sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property. In fact, the plaintiff having paid the entire sale consideration is always ready and willing to obtain 4 regular registered sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property, but the defendants have been postponing the same on some pretext or other. Having vexed with the attitude and evasive replies, the plaintiff got issued Legal Notice, Dt.13.03.2024 to the Defendants 1 to 3 calling upon them to execute regular Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff, wherein the 1st Defendant refused to receive the said legal notice, but the defendants 2 and 3 received it, but there is no reply from them. Thereafter, on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 to 3 brought into existence of sham, nominal and collusive sale deeds in the name of defendants 4 and 5 who are kith and kin of defendants 1 to 3. The defendants 1 to 5 hatched up a plan to have wrongful gain and to deprive the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the 4th defendant brought into existence of collusive sale deeds in the name of defendants 6 to 9 to defeat the interest of plaintiff. While so, on 23.03.2024 the defendants 4 to 9 came to the suit schedule property, threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and tried to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly. In fact, the suit sale agreement is binding on the defendants and defendants 1 to 9 are liable to execute

Registered Sale Deed with respect to the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for the reliefs as referred supra.

3.Defendants 1 to 3 were set ex-parte on 24.06.2024.

5

4.The 7th Defendant filed written statement which was adopted by

D4 to D6, D8 and D9, denying the material averments of plaint, inter alia contending that, Defendants 4 to 9 are the transferees of the suit schedule property, therefore, they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the alleged contract of sale deed, Dt.18.02.2016. If really the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land under the alleged agreement of sale with possession, Dt.18.02.2016, he cannot plead ignorance of the Registered Sale Deed, Dt.05.06.2017 in favour of D4 and D5 and Registered Sale Deed, Dt.13.03.2024 in favour of D6 to D9 since they are all public documents duly registered.

Possession and enjoyment of the entire schedule land by D4 and D5 is to the knowledge of one and all in the village. In fact, the plaintiff being resident of Valluru village of Tangutur Mandal is a stranger to the schedule property situated at Veligandla as well as D1 to D3. Plaintiff is no other than the brother-in-law of one Dada Pulla Rao, resident of

Kankanampadu. The said Pulla Rao demanded D5 to alienate Ac.6.10 cents to him, but D5 refused to sell the said land to Pulla Rao and alienated to D6 to D9, thereby the said Pulla Rao with the aid of plaintiff pressed into service of the alleged sale agreement,

Dt.18.02.2016 only for the purpose of filing this suit. Further, there is no privity of contract between plaintiff on one hand and Defendants 4 to

9. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, it is prayed to 6 dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial on 20.03.2025:-

1.Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale, Dt.18.02.2016 against D1 to D3?

2.Whether D4 to D9 are bona fide purchasers of suit schedule properties?

3.Whether suit is barred by limitation?

4.To what relief?

6.Later when this case is being posted from time to time for trial, on 22.04.2026 learned counsel for Plaintiff filed memo on behalf of

Plaintiff, not pressing suit against D1 to D3, the same is recorded and accordingly the suit is dismissed against D1 to D3 as not pressed.

Further, both the parties filed joint memo with a request to refer this matter to Mediation Centre to effect mediation between plaintiff and

Defendants 4 to 9. Hence, this case was referred to Mediation Centre,

Ongole, for Mediation Report by 23.04.2026. On 23.04.2026 both plaintiff, D4 to D9 along with their counsels present before this Court, wherein Plaintiff and D4 to D9 confirmed the settlement arrived before

Mediation Centre, Ongole, and prayed to dispose of the suit in terms of 7 Settlement of Agreement, Dt.22.04.2024, as referred infra:-

The Defendants 6 to 9 agreed to execute the Registered Sale Deed for undivided extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of the land an extent of Ac.6.10 cents in survey No.147/1A of Veligandla Village and Mandal stands in the name of D6 to D9 out of the suit schedule property on or before 21.05.2026, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to move execution proceedings against D6 to D9 to get execute Registered Sale Deed in his favour through process of law.

07.In view of facts and circumstances set out on record, on going through the recitals of aforementioned Mediation Report, Dt.22.04.2026 and oral representations of both parties on record, it can certainly be construed that, Plaintiff and Defendants 4 to 9 resolved their property dispute amicably by way of Mediation subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated in Mediation Report, Dt.22.04.2026.

08.In the result, this suit is disposed off subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated in Mediation Report, Dt.22.04.2026.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23 rd Day of April, 2026.

Sd/-T.Rajyalakshmi

I-Addl. District Judge FAC Prl. District Judge, Ongole

Appendix of Evidence No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side

Sd/-TRL

I-ADJ,Ongole FAC PDJ, Ongole 8 9

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt T.Rajya Lakshmi, I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC Prl. District Judge, Ongole

Thursday, on this the Twenty Third (23 rd ) Day of April, 2026

OS No.23 of 2024

Between:-

Kale Sreenivasulu, S/o. Subbarao, age: 53 years, Hindu, R/o. Vallur Village,

Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. .... Plaintiff

And

1.Surabhi Subrahmanyam, S/o. Laxminarasaiah, age: 65 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.8-1-28 Upparapalem, Opp. Raghava Kalyana Mandapam, Nellore City, PSR Nellore District.

2.Sangubotla Mahalakshmamma, W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, age: 86 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.27-2-919, Opp. Ravi Sankar Rice Mill, AC Nagar, Nellore City, PSR Nellore District.

3.Avadhanam Srilakshamma, W/o. Subrahmanyam, age: 82 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.12-222, Banglaw Road, Porumamilla Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

4.Karumanchi Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Muralidhara Rao, age: 43 years, Hindu, R/o. Door No.9-25, Neelakantamvari Veedhi, Kanigiri town, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.

5.Karumanchi Venkata Muralidhara Rao, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, age: 60 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.9-25, Neelakantamvari Veedhi, Kanigiri Town, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.

6.Polla Subrahmanyam, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, age: 40 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.1-83, Near Chowdaramma Temple, Main Road, Veligandla Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

7.Chaganti Chinna Veera Reddy, S/o. Late Lakshmi Reddy, age: 60 years, Hindu, R/o. Door No.3-54, Valikuntla Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District.

8.Sura Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Late Narasa Reddy, age: 60 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.5-19, Gokulam Majara, Suravaripalli Road, Veligandla Village and Mandal of Prakasam District.

9.Medam Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, age: 49 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.8-5A, Gillellapadu Village, Kankanampadu Post, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District. …Defendants

This suit is filed for Specific Performance of Possessory Sale

Agreement, Dt.18.02.2016, directing the Defendants 1 to 9 to execute regular Registered Sale Deed with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and if the defendants failed to do so, the same may be done through process of law.

Plaint presented on: 27.03.2024Plaint filed on: 27.03.2024

Valuation & Court Fee:- The relief of specific performance is valued at

Rs.51,00,000/-, being the consideration as per the agreement of sale,

Dt.18.02.2016, on which a court fee of Rs.53,426/- is paid U/Sec.39(a) of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of Action for the suit arose, on 18.02.2016 when the Defendants 1 to 3 sold away the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by duly receiving sale consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-from plaintiff and executed Sale Agreement, when the plaintiff is always ready and willing to get execute regular registered sale deed, when the defendants 1 to 3 have been postponing the same on some pretext or other, when the plaintiff got issued legal notice, Dt.13.03.2024 against Defendants 1 to 3, calling upon them to perform their part of contract, when the defendants 1 to 3 did not respond, subsequently when the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 to 3 played fraud and brought into existence of sham, nominal and collusive registered sale deeds in the name of defendants 4 and 5, in turn, 5th defendant brought into existence of nominal Registered Sale Deeds fraudulently in the name of Defendants 6 to 9 to deprive and defeat the suit sale agreement, when on 23.03.2024 the defendants 4 to 9 tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property forcibly at Veligandla Village, where the suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming on today before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A.Ramaiah, Counsel for plaintiff; Sri

K.Raghava Rao, Counsel for Defendants 4 to 9 and the suit is dismissed against D1 to D3 as not pressed, upon hearing both the counsels, on perusal of Mediation Report, Dt.22.04.2026 and other material available on record, this Court DISPOSED OFF SUIT, DOTH ORDER AND

DECREE:-

i)that the Defendants 6 to 9 herein be and are hereby agreed to execute the Registered Sale Deed for undivided extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of the land an extent of Ac.6.10 cents in survey No.147/1A of Veligandla Village and Mandal stands in the name of D6 to D9 out of the suit schedule property on or before 21.05.2026, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to move execution proceedings against D6 to

D9 to get execute Registered Sale Deed in his favour through process of law.

ii)that there be no order as to costs Costs of the Plaintiff:- Rs.Nil/- (No CM and FC filed) Costs of the defendants:- Rs.Nil (No CM and FC filed) (Schedule is attached to decree)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 23 rd Day of April, 2026.

Sd/-T.Rajyalakshmi

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC Prl. District Judge, Ongole

1

APPR000018872025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt T.Rajyalakshmi I-Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC Principal District Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, on this the Twenty Eighth (28th) Day of April, 2026

DOP No.24 of 2025

Between:-

Kondru Adam, S/o. Samuel, age: 37 years, Christian, Coolie, R/o. D.No.4-13-24/2, Near Lutharan Church, Ujilipeta, Perala, Chirala,

Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District. .... Petitioner

And

Kondru @ Kanaparthi Mounika, W/o. Kondru Adam, D/o. Kanaparthi Mahipaul, Christian, age: 34 years, Coolie, R/o. D.No.2-9, Kavuru Village,

Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla District-522611 ...Respondent.

This petition is coming on 22.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Anjaneyulu, Counsel for Petitioner and the Respondent is having set ex-parte, on hearing learned counsel for Petitioner, upon consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage, Dt.25.06.2011 held between the Petitioner and Respondent by passing decree of divorce on the 2 ground of cruelty.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that, both the Petitioner and

Respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnized on 25.06.2011 at the parents house of Petitioner at Ujilipet, Chirala, as per

Christian rites and their caste customs in the presence of both family members and friends. Immediately after the marriage, the Respondent joined the company of Petitioner with a view to lead marital life and the same was duly consummated, out of their wedlock, they blessed with two children. It is further contended that, right from the beginning of marriage, Respondent used to show aversion and dislike towards the

Petitioner and on the other hand, she used to harass the Petitioner to put up separate family at her parents house. It is further contended that, Respondent used to chat in cell phone by closing the bedroom doors, when the Petitioner questioned the same, Respondent used to give adamant reply that he has no right to question her attitude and she will live as per her whims and fancies. Even then the Petitioner bore the harassment meted out in the hands of Respondent with a fond hope that there would certainly be change in her attitude, but in vain. While so, on 22.08.2024 the Respondent left the conjugal society of Petitioner on the pretext that she is going to attend marriage of her brother and since then she did not choose to join the conjugal fold of Petitioner.

Later the Petitioner went to the parents house of Respondent and could 3 find that she was not present there and he could trace out the

Respondent at the house of Kancharla Unni Krishna at Tenali.

Thereafter, the Petitioner placed the said issue before elders, in turn, they reprimanded the Respondent to change her attitude and lead happy marital life with the Petitioner, but there is no change in the attitude of Respondent.

3.While so, on 25.01.2025 the Respondent along with her child

Sujitha Kumari went to her parents house at Kavuru without any intimation to the Petitioner and started residing therein. Thereafter, the

Petitioner conciliated the said issue personally and through elders, but the Respondent bluntly refused to join the conjugal fold of Petitioner proclaiming that she has no interest to lead marital life with the

Petitioner and wants to dissolve her marital tie with the Petitioner. In such circumstances, the Petitioner strongly felt that their marital tie is irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility for reunion, thereby he is constrained to file this petition seeking for dissolution of his marriage which took place with the Respondent on the ground of cruelty.

4.The Petitioner further undertakes that, there is no collusion with the Respondent in filing this petition and there are no similar proceedings pending before any other court of law.

4

5.In spite of receipt of Notice, Respondent failed to make her appearance before this Court, thereby she was set ex-parte on 10.12.2025.

6.In order to substantiate the case, the Petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A3 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is Marriage Certificate issued by Rev.Degala Ratnam, AEL

Church Pastor, Ujilipet, Chirala, Dt.25.06.2011; Ex.A2/Notarized joint photograph of Photograph of Petitioner and Respondent; and

Ex.A3/Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner (verified with original).

7.Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

8. Now, the points for determination are:

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as prayed?

ii) To What relief?

POINT No.1:

9. The petitioner/PW.1 (Kondru Adam, S/o. Samuel) filed his chief examination affidavit, asserted on oath, reiterating the averments of petition and testified that, his marriage had taken place with the

Respondent on 25.06.2011 at his parents house at Ujilipet of Chirala, as per Christian rites and their caste customs and immediately 5 thereafter, the Respondent joined his company with a view to lead marital life and the same was duly consummated and out of their wedlock, they blessed with two children. PW.1 further testified that, from the beginning of marriage, Respondent developed aversion towards the Petitioner without any reasonable cause and on the other hand, she used to insist him to put up separate family at her parents house at

Kavuru and as he refused to do so, she used to exhibit hostile attitude towards him acting detrimental to her marital obligations without providing conjugal happiness and even then he bore the harassment meted out in the hands of Respondent with a fond hope that there would certainly be change in her attitude, but in vain. PW.1 further testified that, Respondent used to indulge in chatting over mobile phone even without attending household works and on one occasion he could perceive that she is chatting with someone by closing bed room doors and on questioning the same, she replied that he has no right to question her. PW.1 further testified that, on 22.08.2024 the

Respondent left her matrimonial house on the pretext that she has to attend works of marriage of her brother at Kavuru, but he came to know that she did not go to that village and on enquiry, he could find her in a house of Kancharla Unni Krishna at Tenali, in turn, he placed the said issue before elders, wherein elders reprimanded the

Respondent directing her to lead marital life with him amicably, but 6 even then there is no change in the attitude of Respondent and she left his conjugal society on 25.01.2025 and since then she did not join his conjugal fold even in spite of several conciliatory made by him personally and through elders as she refused to join his conjugal fold and wants divorce by dissolving their marital tie.

10.Having regard to the learned counsel for Petitioner and unrebuttal evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 clearly denotes that, the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent had taken place on 25.06.2011 at Ujilipet of Chirala, thereafter the Respondent subjected the Petitioner to cruelty exhibiting hostile attitude towards him without any reasonable cause acting detrimental to her marital obligations and left his conjugal society on 25.01.2025 without any valid and tenable grounds and since then she did not turn up to join conjugal fold of

Petitioner even in spite of conciliatory efforts made by him personally and through elders. On evaluation of all these factual aspects, this

Court is of the considered view that, marital tie of Petitioner and

Respondent is irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility for their reunion due to unwarranted attitude of Respondent towards the

Petitioner, thereby this Court deems just to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, dissolving the marriage held between the

Petitioner and Respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

7 POINT No.2:

11. In the result, this petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage held between the Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.25.06.2011 on the ground of cruelty as contemplated U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 28 th Day of April, 2026.

Sd/-T.Rajyalakshmi

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC Prl. District Judge,Ongole

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:-For Respondent:-

PW.1 : Kondru Adam -None-

Documents Marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.A1:Marriage Certificate issued by Rev.Degala Ratnam, AEL Church Pastor, Ujilipet, Chirala, Dt.25.06.2011

Ex.A2:Notarized joint Photograph of Petitioner and Respondent

Ex.A3:Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner (verified with original)

For Respondent:- Nil

Sd/-TRL

I-ADJ FAC PDJ, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt T.Rajyalakshmi I-Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC Principal District Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, on this the Twenty Eighth (28th) Day of April, 2026

DOP No.24 of 2025

Between:-

Kondru Adam, S/o. Samuel, age: 37 years, Christian, Coolie, R/o. D.No.4-13-24/2, Near Lutharan Church, Ujilipeta, Perala, Chirala,

Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District. .... Petitioner

And

Kondru @ Kanaparthi Mounika, W/o. Kondru Adam, D/o. Kanaparthi Mahipaul, Christian, age: 34 years, Coolie, R/o. D.No.2-9, Kavuru Village,

Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla District-522611 ...Respondent.

This petition is filed U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage, Dt.25.06.2011 held between the Petitioner and Respondent by passing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Petition presented on : 09.05.2025Petition filed on : 09.05.2025

Court Fee:- A fixed court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Schedule-II Article-1(iii) of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the petition arose, when the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 25.06.2011 at the house of Petitioner at Ujilipet of Chirala, as per Christian rites and their caste customs, when the said marriage was duly consummated and they were blessed with two children, when the Respondent used to exhibit hostile attitude towards the Petitioner without providing conjugal happiness acting detrimental to her marital obligations, when the Respondent used to chat in mobile phone by closing bed room doors, when the Respondent left her matrimonial house on the pretext that she has to attend marriage works of her brother at Kavuru village, but without going there, stayed in the house of one Kancharla Unni Krishna at Tenali, when the Petitioner placed the said issue before elders, wherein they reprimanded the Respondent to change her attiude and even then there is no change in the attitude of Respondent towards the Petitioner and ultimately left his conjugal society on 25.01.2025 and since then she did not turn up to join the conjugal fold of Petitioner even in spite of his conciliatory efforts personally and through elders, when the Petitioner and Respondent lastly resided at Ujilipet of Chirala, Bapatla District, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This petition is coming on 22.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Anjaneyulu, Counsel for Petitioner and the Respondent is having set ex-parte, on hearing learned counsel for Petitioner, upon consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER IN ALLOWING THE PETITION AND DECREE:- (1)that the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.25.06.2011 be and is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on the ground of cruelty; (2)that there be no order as to costs (No CM and FC filed on either side)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 28 th Day of April, 2026.

Sd/-T.Rajyalakshmi

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FACPrl. District Judge,Ongole

1

APPR000031562025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt T.Rajyalakshmi I-Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC Principal District Judge, Ongole

Monday, on this the Twenty Seventh (27th) Day of April, 2026

DOP No.57 of 2025

Between:-

Golla Suresh Kumar, S/o. Subbaiah, age: 35 years, Christian, Private Employee, R/o. Thimmasamudram Village,

Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. .... Petitioner

And

Golla @ Kondru Saritha, W/o. Golla Suresh Kumar, D/o. Kondru Venkata Rao, age: 30 years, Christian, Private Employee, R/o. SC Colony, Near Ambedkar Statue, Ravinuthala Post, Korisapadu Mandal,

Bapatla District-523212. ...Respondent.

This petition is coming on 20.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Rama Rao, Counsel for Petitioner and the Respondent is having set ex-parte, on hearing learned counsel for Petitioner, upon consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage, Dt.28.07.2017 held between the Petitioner and Respondent by passing decree of divorce on the 2 ground of cruelty.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that, both the Petitioner and

Respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnized on 28.07.2017 at the parents house of Petitioner at Thimmasamudram

Village, Nagulupalapadu Mandal, as per Christian rites and their caste customs in the presence of both family members and friends.

Immediately after the marriage, the Respondent joined the company of

Petitioner with a view to lead marital life and the same was duly consummated, out of their wedlock, they blessed with two male children viz., Tashvin on 20.08.2018, Abhishek on 25.09.2020 and now they are in the custody of Respondent. It is further contended that, right from the beginning of marriage, Respondent used to exhibit aversion towards the Petitioner without any reasonable cause, used to pick up quarrels with him on flimsy grounds, went to her parents house and join the company of Petitioner at the instance of elders. Further, Respondent used to insist the Petitioner to set up separate family at her parental house and as the Petitioner failed to do so, Respondent used to humiliate him within public view and even then the Petitioner bore the harassment meted out in the hands of Respondent with a fond hope that there would certainly be change in her attitude, but in vain.

3

3.While so, in the month of December, 2023, the Respondent went to her parents house at Ravinuthala Village along with children, without any intimation or reasonable cause acting detrimental to her marital obligations, in turn, the Petitioner conciliated the said issue personally and through elders with a view to join the conjugal fold of

Respondent, but the Respondent refused to join the Petitioner by insulting him in cruel manner as his income is meager and not in a position to provide amenities to lead luxurious life as per her wish. In such circumstances, the Petitioner strongly felt that their marital tie is irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility for reunion, thereby he is constrained to file this petition seeking for dissolution of his marriage which took place with the Respondent on the ground of cruelty.

4.The Petitioner further undertakes that, there is no collusion with the Respondent in filing this petition and there are no similar proceedings pending before any other court of law.

5.In spite of receipt of Notice, Respondent failed to make her appearance before this Court, thereby she was set ex-parte on 30.12.2025.

6.In order to substantiate the case, the Petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A3 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is Marriage Certificate issued by Bro.Neelam Subba Rao, 4 Marriage Registrar, Thimmasamudram Village, Dt.28.07.2017;

Ex.A2/Wedding Invitation Card of Petitioner and Respondent; and

Ex.A3/Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner (verified with original).

7.Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

8. Now, the points for determination are:

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as prayed?

ii) To What relief?

POINT No.1:

9. The petitioner/PW.1 (Golla Suresh Kumar, S/o. Subbaiah) filed his chief examination affidavit, asserted on oath, reiterating the averments of petition and testified that, his marriage had taken place with the Respondent on 28.07.2017 at his house in Thimmasamudram

Village, as per Christian rites and their caste customs and immediately, the Respondent joined his conjugal fold and the same was duly consummated and out of their wedlock they blessed with two sons.

PW.1 further testified that, from the beginning of marriage, Respondent used to exhibit hostile attitude towards him without any reasonable cause and further she used to demand to put up separate family at her parents house at Ravinuthala Village and when he failed to oblige the demand made by Respondent, the Respondent used to humiliate him 5 within public view and even then he bore the harassment meted out in the hands of Respondent that there would certainly be change in her attitude in future, but in vain. PW.1 further testified that, in the month of December, 2023, the Respondent went to her parents house at

Ravinuthala and since then she did not turn up to join his conjugal fold in spite of his persistent conciliatory efforts to bring back the

Respondent to his conjugal fold and in such circumstances, he is constrained to file this petition

10.Having regard to the learned counsel for Petitioner and unrebuttal evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 clearly denotes that, the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent had taken place on 28.07.2017 at Timmasamudram Village, thereafter the Respondent subjected the

Petitioner to cruelty exhibiting hostile attitude towards him without any reasonable cause acting detrimental to her marital obligations and left his conjugal society from December, 2023 without any valid and tenable grounds and since then she did not turn up to join conjugal fold of Petitioner even in spite of conciliatory efforts made by him personally and through elders. On evaluation of all these factual aspects, this

Court is of the considered view that, marital tie of Petitioner and

Respondent is irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility for their reunion due to unwarranted attitude of Respondent towards the

Petitioner, thereby this Court deems just to grant decree of divorce on 6 the ground of cruelty, dissolving the marriage held between the

Petitioner and Respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

POINT No.2:

11. In the result, this petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage held between the Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.28.07.2017 on the ground of cruelty as contemplated U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27 th Day of April, 2026.

Sd/-T.Rajyalakshmi

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC Prl. District Judge,Ongole

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:-For Respondent:-

PW.1 : Golla Suresh Kumar -None-

Documents Marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.A1:Marriage Certificate issued by Bro.Neelam Subba Rao, Marriage Registrar, Thimmasamudram Village, Dt.28.07.2017

Ex.A2:Wedding Invitation Card of Petitioner and Respondent

Ex.A3:Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner (verified with original)

For Respondent:- Nil

Sd/-TRL

I-ADJ FAC PDJ, Ongole 7

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt T.Rajyalakshmi I-Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC Principal District Judge, Ongole

Monday, on this the Twenty Seventh (27th) Day of April, 2026

DOP No.57 of 2025

Between:-

Golla Suresh Kumar, S/o. Subbaiah, age: 35 years, Christian, Private Employee, R/o. Thimmasamudram Village,

Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. .... Petitioner

And

Golla @ Kondru Saritha, W/o. Golla Suresh Kumar, D/o. Kondru Venkata Rao, age: 30 years, Christian, Private Employee, R/o. SC Colony, Near Ambedkar Statue, Ravinuthala Post, Korisapadu Mandal,

Bapatla District-523212. ...Respondent.

This petition is filed U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage, Dt.28.07.2017 held between the Petitioner and Respondent by passing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Petition presented on : 28.07.2025Petition filed on : 05.08.2025

Court Fee:- A fixed court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Schedule-II Article-1(iii) of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the petition arose, when the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 28.07.2017 at the house of Petitioner at Timmasamudram Village, as per Christian rites and their caste customs, when the said marriage was duly consummated and they were blessed with two children, when the Respondent used to exhibit hostile attitude towards the Petitioner without any reasonable cause and used to leave his company of her whims and fancies subjecting him to humiliation within public view and in like manner, the Respondent left the conjugal fold of Petitioner in the month of December, 2023 along with children and since then she did not turn up to join the conjugal fold of Petitioner even in spite of conciliatory made by the Petitioner personally and through elders, when the Petitioner and Respondent lastly resided at Timmasudram Village of Naguluppalapadu Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This petition is coming on 20.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Rama Rao, Counsel for Petitioner and the Respondent is having set ex-parte, on hearing learned counsel for Petitioner, upon consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER IN ALLOWING THE PETITION AND DECREE:- (1)that the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.28.07.2017 be and is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on the ground of cruelty; (2)that there be no order as to costs (No CM and FC filed on either side)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 27 th Day of April, 2026.

Sd/-T.Rajyalakshmi

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FACPrl. District Judge,Ongole

1

APPR000020422026

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

Before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri K.Syam Babu, VII-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, FAC::I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Prakasam District.

Tuesday, this the 19th (Nineteenth) day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.232 & 244 of 2026

in (Crime No.629 of 2024 of Ongole Taluka Police Station)

Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2026

Between:

Parasa Durga Prasad @ Tenali Durga Prasad (A.3), S/o Syam Kumar, aged 26 years, Caste by Mala, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/A.3

A N D

The State S.H.O, Ongole Taluka Police Station Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2026

Between:

Benguluri Manvity Anvesh (A.4) S/o Venkata Rao, aged 22 years, Caste by Mala, Balaram Colony, 1st line, Ongole Town.

… Petitioner/A.4 2

A N D

The State S.H.O, Ongole Taluka Police Station Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

The above numbered two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are coming on 15.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri SVB Chary, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ A.3 in Crl.M.P.232/2026 and of Sri N.Pothu Raju, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A.4 and of Learned i/c Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State –Complainant/Respondent in both the applications and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

// C O M M O N O R D E R //

01.The above numbered two bail applications have been filed by the petitioners/ Accused No.3 & 4 respectively Under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a request to enlarge them on bail that they have been falsely implicated in a case registered as Crime No. 629 of 2024 of Ongole Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable Under

Sections. 109, 115 (2), 351 (3) r/w.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that they have been remanded to judicial custody on 01.05.2026 and 04.05.2026 respectively.

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

3.Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners / Accused No.3 & 4 requested this Court to grant bail.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.3 & A.4 and the learned i/c Addl. Public Prosecutor.

5.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the Petitioners/A.3 & A.4 are entitled for grant of bail?

3

6.POINT:- This Court has perused the crime records, read the bail application and has given a thoughtful consideration, on such evaluation, it is found that this is a case of attempt to commit murder, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation that occurred on 30.10.2024 at about 16.15 hours at

Sriram Colony, Ongole that complainant is an auto driver, his second son

Gherson failed intermediate and staying at Home. On 30.10.2024 at about 16.15 hours his son’s friend Ramu went to water pond in the outskirts of

Venkateswara Colony, Ongole and while taking photographs, at that time the accused No.1 to 4 came there on motor cycles and warned them to leave that place as they are going to consume liquor. On that Ramu told them after taking photographs and leave that place. On that the accused got angry and pushed Ramu down and beat with hands and legs indiscriminately, on seeing the same his son Gherson intervened and questioned the accused about beating of Ramu. On that the accused grew wild and hatched a plan to do away the life of Gherson. As part of their plan Accused No.1 to 4 attacked on

Gherson. Among them A.1 and A.2 took an empty beer bottle, empty wine bottle and beat on the head of Gherson. Further A.1 took a stone and beat near left eye and causing bleeding injuries. They also pushed down Sandeep and beat with hands and legs indiscriminately. On that Gherson shouting loudly, on hearing the cries of Gherson, the neighbours rushed to the spot and on seeing the arrival of the neighbours, all the accused fled away from the spot. Later Gherson shifted to Vatsalya Hospital, Ongole for treatment. Thus, the case.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.3 submits that the petitioner is innocent and he did not commit the offence and the respondent police falsely implicated him in this crime and when the offence occurred, he is present there and as per remand report and FIR, he did not commit any offence against the complainant’s son and his friends and the petitioner is nothing to do with the offence and he was just added in this case by police as scape goat, in which he never committed any offence and he does not know that there is a case 4 registered against him until he was arrested and all the allegations are false and the material relied on by the prosecution including alleged confession is fabricated for the purpose of this case and on 01.05.2026, the respondent police arrested the petitioner in the presence of mediators basing on his confession, which is inadmissible in evidence and except filing of charge sheet entire investigation might have been completed and the petitioner discontinued his studies and working as worker in Suzuki Show Room in accessories

Department and his wife is carrying 3rd month pregnancy, who is deaf and dumb person and he is the only source to his wife to assist her and she is dependent on him and therefore sought to grant bail to the petitioner/A.3.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4 submits that the petitioner/A.4 is innocent and he did not commit any alleged offence and the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence and the respondent police falsely implicated the petitioner at the instance of complainant in this case and the facts of the case do not attracts Section 109 BNS as the son of complainant received simple injuries and discharged from the hospital on the same day and except filing of charge sheet entire investigation is completed as the alleged offence took place in the year 2024 and the petitioner is studying BPT

Physiotherapy in RPR College of Physiotherapy, Ongole and his educational career will be spoiled as he is in judicial custody till now and he undertakes to furnish sufficient sureties and therefore sought to grant bail to the petitioner/A.4.

9.The learned i/c. Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that though charge sheet is filed, if they are released on bail, there may be life danger to the life of LW.2 and complainant and they may threaten the witnesses and tamper the evidence of prosecution and they may abscond from the clutches of legal punishment and there is every possibility of committing similar offence and there is no guarantee to attend the court for adjournments and, therefore, he is opposing the grant of bail to the petitioners/A.3 & A.4.

5

10.I have carefully gone through the F.I.R, complaint report and other material available on record. It is the case that, the petitioners along with other accused attempted to commit murder by beating with empty beer bottle and voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation. Anent to the above, police filed charge sheet on 06.05.2026, it seems that investigation is completed.

During the course of arguments it is brought on record that the petitioners / A.3 & A.4 have got fixed abode and solvent sureties. There is no flight risk.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and as other accused released on bail, this court inclines to grant bail to the petitioners/ A.3 & A.4.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, both the the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos. 232/2026 & 244/2026 are allowed, ordering the release of the petitioners / A.3 & A.4 on bail on their executing personal bonds for Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties for the like some each to the satisfaction of learned III-Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Ongole and shall not influence the witnesses.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-. K.Syam Babu,

VII-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Prakasam District

Copies to:-

1. The III-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

2. The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Ongole

3. The Station House Officer, Taluka Police Station.

4. The counsel for the petitioners.

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

Sr.Superintendent, I AD & SJ Court, Ongole.

1

APPR000020552026

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

Before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Present: Sri K.Syam Babu, VII-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, FAC::I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Prakasam District.

Tuesday, this the 19th (Nineteenth) day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.232 & 244 of 2026

in (Crime No.629 of 2024 of Ongole Taluka Police Station)

Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2026

Between:

Parasa Durga Prasad @ Tenali Durga Prasad (A.3), S/o Syam Kumar, aged 26 years, Caste by Mala, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/A.3

A N D

The State S.H.O, Ongole Taluka Police Station Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2026

Between:

Benguluri Manvity Anvesh (A.4) S/o Venkata Rao, aged 22 years, Caste by Mala, Balaram Colony, 1st line, Ongole Town.

… Petitioner/A.4 2

A N D

The State S.H.O, Ongole Taluka Police Station Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

The above numbered two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are coming on 15.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri SVB Chary, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ A.3 in Crl.M.P.232/2026 and of Sri N.Pothu Raju, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A.4 and of Learned i/c. Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State –Complainant/Respondent in both the applications and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

// C O M M O N O R D E R //

01.The above numbered two bail applications have been filed by the petitioners/ Accused No.3 & 4 respectively Under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a request to enlarge them on bail that they have been falsely implicated in a case registered as Crime No. 629 of 2024 of Ongole Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable Under

Sections. 109, 115 (2), 351 (3) r/w.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that they have been remanded to judicial custody on 01.05.2026 and 04.05.2026 respectively.

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

3.Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners / Accused No.3 & 4 requested this Court to grant bail.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.3 & A.4 and the learned i/c Addl. Public Prosecutor.

5.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the Petitioners/A.3 & A.4 are entitled for grant of bail?

3

6.POINT:- This Court has perused the crime records, read the bail application and has given a thoughtful consideration, on such evaluation, it is found that this is a case of attempt to commit murder, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation that occurred on 30.10.2024 at about 16.15 hours at

Sriram Colony, Ongole that complainant is an auto driver, his second son

Gherson failed intermediate and staying at Home. On 30.10.2024 at about 16.15 hours his son’s friend Ramu went to water pond in the outskirts of

Venkateswara Colony, Ongole and while taking photographs, at that time the accused No.1 to 4 came there on motor cycles and warned them to leave that place as they are going to consume liquor. On that Ramu told them after taking photographs and leave that place. On that the accused got angry and pushed Ramu down and beat with hands and legs indiscriminately, on seeing the same his son Gherson intervened and questioned the accused about beating of Ramu. On that the accused grew wild and hatched a plan to do away the life of Gherson. As part of their plan Accused No.1 to 4 attacked on

Gherson. Among them A.1 and A.2 took an empty beer bottle, empty wine bottle and beat on the head of Gherson. Further A.1 took a stone and beat near left eye and causing bleeding injuries. They also pushed down Sandeep and beat with hands and legs indiscriminately. On that Gherson shouting loudly, on hearing the cries of Gherson, the neighbours rushed to the spot and on seeing the arrival of the neighbours, all the accused fled away from the spot. Later Gherson shifted to Vatsalya Hospital, Ongole for treatment. Thus, the case.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.3 submits that the petitioner is innocent and he did not commit the offence and the respondent police falsely implicated him in this crime and when the offence occurred, he is present there and as per remand report and FIR, he did not commit any offence against the complainant’s son and his friends and the petitioner is nothing to do with the offence and he was just added in this case by police as scape goat, in which he never committed any offence and he does not know that there is a case registered against him until he was arrested and all the allegations are false 4 and the material relied on by the prosecution including alleged confession is fabricated for the purpose of this case and on 01.05.2026, the respondent police arrested the petitioner in the presence of mediators basing on his confession, which is inadmissible in evidence and except filing of charge sheet entire investigation might have been completed and the petitioner discontinued his studies and working as worker in Suzuki Show Room in accessories

Department and his wife is carrying 3rd month pregnancy, who is deaf and dumb person and he is the only source to his wife to assist her and she is dependent on him and therefore sought to grant bail to the petitioner/A.3.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4 submits that the petitioner/A.4 is innocent and he did not commit any alleged offence and the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence and the respondent police falsely implicated the petitioner at the instance of complainant in this case and the facts of the case do not attracts Section 109 BNS as the son of complainant received simple injuries and discharged from the hospital on the same day and except filing of charge sheet entire investigation is completed as the alleged offence took place in the year 2024 and the petitioner is studying BPT

Physiotherapy in RPR College of Physiotherapy, Ongole and his educational career will be spoiled as he is in judicial custody till now and he undertakes to furnish sufficient sureties and therefore sought to grant bail to the petitioner/A.4.

9.The learned i/c Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that though charge sheet is filed, if they are released on bail, there may be life danger to the life of LW.2 and complainant and they may threaten the witnesses and tamper the evidence of prosecution and they may abscond from the clutches of legal punishment and there is every possibility of committing similar offence and there is no guarantee to attend the court for adjournments and, therefore, he is opposing the grant of bail to the petitioners/A.3 & A.4.

5

10.I have carefully gone through the F.I.R, complaint report and other material available on record. It is the case that, the petitioners along with other accused attempted to commit murder by beating with empty beer bottle and voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation. Anent to the above, police filed charge sheet on 06.05.2026, it seems that investigation is completed.

During the course of arguments it is brought on record that the petitioners / A.3 & A.4 have got fixed abode and solvent sureties. There is no flight risk.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and as other accused released on bail, this court inclines to grant bail to the petitioners/ A.3 & A.4.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, both the the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos. 232/2026 & 244/2026 are allowed, ordering the release of the petitioners / A.3 & A.4 on bail on their executing personal bonds for Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties for the like some each to the satisfaction of learned III-Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Ongole and shall not influence the witnesses.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-K.Syam Babu,

VII-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Prakasam District

Copies to:-

1. The III-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

2. The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Ongole

3. The Station House Officer, Taluka Police Station.

4. The counsel for the petitioners.

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

Sr.Superintendent, I AD & SJ Court, Ongole.