Sri U.U. Prasad

VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Prl District Courts, Chittoor · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Sri U.U. Prasad, VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, is posted at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 555 court orders on record since 2011. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLMP, SC, EP cases.

555

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CRLMP.BAIL/548/2021

Maddila Manohar (Accused) vs The state rep. by ths SHO of Tiruchanur P.S.

22 Jul 2021

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: CHITTOOR DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DIST., & SESSIONS JUDGE -CUM –

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN :: CHITTOOR.

Present : Sri. U.U.Prasad, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofences against Women, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Twenty Second (22nd) day of July, 2021.

Crl.M.P.No. 548 / 2021

Cr. No. 202 of 2021 of Tiruchanur Police Station Between:

Maddila Manohar, S/o M. Jayaramaiah, aged about 27 years, D.No.4-53A, Flat No.101, Sathyasai Temple Street, Sainagar Panchayat, Kesavayanagunta, Tirupati, Native of Venkata Dasaralapalli Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

..Petitioner/Accused

And:

The State rep. By S.H.O. of Tiruchanur P.S.

.. Respondent/ Complainant

This petition coming on this day before me through video conference for hearing in the presence of Sri I. Ramesh and Sri G. Kishore Kumar -Advocates for Petitioner/Accused and Smt. T. Nirmala- Additional Public Prosecutor for State, and upon hearing both sides through blue jeans video app, and upon perusing the material available on record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition fled Under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of Regular Bail to the Petitioner/Accused in Cr.No.202/2021 of Tiruchanur Police Station, with the following averments:

The police have registered FIR against the accused U/Sec.304-B IPC. As per prosecution case, the petitioner and Yamini/deceased fell in love and married in the year 2019 and put up separate family at Kesavayanagunta,

Tirupati and lived happily for some days. Later the petitioner allegedly harassed his wife for additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Due to alleged unbearable harassment, she attempted to commit suicide by hanging on 21.05.2021 at 11.30 AM in the absence of accused. Later the accused and neighbours shifted to Hellos Hospital, Tirupati and further shifted to SVIMS

Hospital. She died on 01.06.2021 at 6.30 PM while undergoing treatment.

The petitioner/accused submits that he is innocent and did not commit any ofence, but was falsely implicated in this ofence. His marriage was performed with the deceased without the consent of her parents, hence parents of deceased harassed her physically and mentally. As

Yamini/deceased was sufering with blood cancer prior to her marriage, the petitioner married her knowingly with love and afection and provided 2 treatment at CMC Hospital, Vellore every month. The medical records are herewith produced to prove the same. The petitioner/accused purchased and provided gold chain to Yamini on 30.04.2021at CMR Shopping Mall and further purchased Yamaha motor bike in the name of Yamini towards love and afection. The petitioner/accused incurred Rs. 6,00,000/- towards treatment at Hellos Hospital. One month prior to the incident of suicide,

Yamini was chatting through whats’app with one Himadar Kittu during late night, hence the accused warned her on 20.05.2021 to change her attitude.

On the next day ie., on 21.05.2021 the petitioner/accused went to his job and in his absence she committed suicide. Hence, the accused is no way connected to the incident. Material part of investigation has been completed except fling of charge sheet. Further, the FIR was registered with a delay of 10 days. This is the second bail application. The petitioner is having permanent residence and ready to produce sureties, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioner/accused on bail.

2. Notice given to learned Addl.Public Prosecutor.

3. Heard both sides through blue jeans vide app.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused argued that, the deceased Yamini was sufering with blood cancer. Having known the said fact, the petitioner/accused fell in love with her and got married without the consent of parents of Yamini, hence parents of the deceased harassed her.

During the marital life, he provided treatment to his wife regularly and also provided motor bike and gold jewellary. Further, after commission of the incident of attempt to suicide, the petitioner incurred expenditure not less than Rs. 6,00,000/-. Parents have fled false case with a delay of 10 days.

Material part of investigation has been completed except fling of charge sheet. This is the second bail application. The petitioner/accused has been in judicial custody since 19.06.2021, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioner/accused on bail.

5.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that investigation has been completed, hence discretion left to the court.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the Petitioner/Accused can be granted Bail as

prayed for?

7. Point:-

In view of the prevailing Corona Virus circumstances lockdown, the arguments of both the counsels were heard through blue jeans video app.

Perused the record. The marriage of deceased with the petitioner/accused is undisputed. The prosecution case shows that there were allegations of demanding dowry by the petitioner/accused. The contents of the report shows that they meted the demands of accused by presenting gold and cash, atlast she made attempt to commit suicide due to harassment. Yamini was admitted in the hospital and she was under treatment for 10 days in the hospital and died on 01.06.2021 while undergoing treatment. The petitioner/ accused has been in judicial custody since 19.06.2021. In view of the submissions of Addl.PP, entire investigation has been completed. Considering the circumstances and the Corona pandemic situation, the petition is allowed granting bail to the petitioner/Accused.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed enlarging the Petitioner/

Accused on bail, on execution of personal bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands only) and on production of two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of V AJFCM, Tirupati.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 22nd day of July, 2021.

Sd/- U. U. Prasad,

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofence against Women, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copies to:

1. The Station House Ofcer, Tiruchanur Police Station.

2. The V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati

3. The counsel for the petitioner on payment of process.

CRLMP.BAIL/565/2021

Mallela Bhuvaneswar @ Bhuvan (A.3) vs The state of A.P. rep. by its SHO of Tiruchanuru P.S., Tirupati.

26 Jul 2021

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: CHITTOOR DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DIST., & SESSIONS JUDGE -CUM –

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN :: CHITTOOR.

Present : Sri. U.U.Prasad, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofences against Women, Chittoor.

Monday, the 26th (Twenty Sixth) day of July, 2021

Crl.M.P.No. 565 of 2021

Cr. No. 382 of 2021 of Tiruchanur P.S., Tirupati

Mallela Bhuvaneswar @ Bhuvan, S/o late Lingaswamy, Aged about 30 years, Nallagutlapalli Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

..Petitioner/Accused No.3

And:

State rep. By S.H.O. of Tiruchanur P.S., Tirupati.

.. Respondent/ Complainant

This petition is coming on for hearing before me this day and upon perusing the petition, and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri I. Ramesh-Advocate for Petitioner/ Accused No.3 and Smt. T.Nirmala- Additional Public Prosecutor for State, and upon hearing both sides, and upon perusing the material available on record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition fled Under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of Regular Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in Cr.No.382/2021 of Tiruchanur Police

Station, Tirupati with the following averments:

The police have registered the case under provisions Sec. 370(A)(2) IPC and Sec. 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 7(1) of Immoral Trafc (Prevention) Act, 2006, stating that the A-1 is tout, A-1 and A-2 being organizers have been maintaining the brothel house. During the raids the police detected the ofence, arrested A-1 & A-2 and A-3/customer. On the statements of

LW-1/victim and confession of A-1 to A-3 recorded in the seizure mahazar, police registered the FIR and arrested the accused and produced for remand.

The petitioner/A-3 has been in judicial remand since 16.07.2021.

The petitioner submits that the petitioner/A-3 is innocent and he has not committed any ofence, but falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is having old aged parents and children and he is bread winner of the family, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail.

2. Notice given to learned Addl.Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ Accused No.3 argued that, 2 the accused No.3 is innocent and he has not committed any ofence, but he was falsely implicated in this case, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioner/ accused No.3 on bail.

4.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued opposing the bail application and submitted that petitioner/A-3 is customer and other accused

No.1 & 2 have been maintaining the prostitution. Investigation has been pending and hence petition may be dismissed.

5.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.3 can be granted Bail

as prayed for?

6. Point:-

In view of the prevailing Corona Virus circumstances and lockdown, the arguments of both the counsels were heard through blue jeans video app.

Ground Floor, Raghavendra Nagar, Tirupati by 4.14 PM on 15.07.2021 and found A-3/customer and LW-1 participating sexual intercourse. Later the police enquired LW-1 and examined LW-1, A-1 and A-2 and prepared mahazar stating that A-1 is tout with the help of A-2 has been organizing prostitution for commission purpose by establishing the prostitution house in a public place. A-3 approached them and paid an amount of Rs. 1,500/-. The said amount was shared by accused No.1 & 2 and LW-1. Later the police have arrested accused No.1 to 3 under the cover of mahazar and then registered FIR. The case record discloses that A-4 is only customer and not the trafcker.

07. As per the authority decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh reported in Goenka Sajan Kumar Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh -2015(3) Crimes – 281 (A.P) his lordships observed and held that the

provisions of Sec. 3 to 7 of Immoral Trafc Prevention Act, 1956 are

not applicable to the customers of Brothel House”

In another authority Chandru.S Vs. State of Karnataka reported in

Criminal Petition No.5059 of 2017 dt: 07.12.2017 his lordships held 3 that the provisions of Sec. 370(A) of Indian Penal Code and the

offences under Immoral Trafc Prevention Act, 1956 are not

applicable to the customers.

08.Perused the remand report. The petitioner/A-3 has been in judicial custody since 16.07.2021. Considering the circumstances of the instant case that A-3 is customer only, the petition is allowed.

09.In the result, the petition is allowed enlarging the Petitioner/

A-3 on bail, on execution of personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousands only) and on production of two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of V AJFCM, Tirupati.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 26th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- U.U.Prasad,

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofence against Women, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to: The V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati Copy to: The Station House Ofcer, Tiruchanur PS, Tirupati Copy to the counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges.

CRLMP.BAIL/547/2021

Kotikalapudi Raju (A.2) vs The state rep. by its SHO of East P.S., Tirupati.

20 Jul 2021

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: CHITTOOR DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DIST., & SESSIONS JUDGE -CUM –

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN :: CHITTOOR.

Present : Sri. U.U.Prasad, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofences against Women, Chittoor.

Tuesday, the 20th (Twentieth) day of July, 2021

Crl.M.P.No. 547 of 2021

Cr. No. 446 of 2021 of East P.S., Tirupati

1) Kotikalapudi Raju, S/o K. Rambabu, aged about 33 years, D.No.5-41, Ramakovela Street, Durgada Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District. (A-2),

2) N. Durga Nanaji, S/o N. Manibabu, aged about 23 years, Residing at Durgada Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District. (A-3),

..Petitioners/A-2 & A-3

And:

State rep. By S.H.O. of East P.S., Tirupati.

.. Respondent/ Complainant

This petition is coming on for hearing before me this day and upon perusing the petition, and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri L.Balaji and Sri G. Kishore Kumar- Advocates for Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 and Smt. T.Nirmala- Additional Public Prosecutor for State, and upon hearing both sides, and upon perusing the material available on record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition fled Under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of Regular Bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 in Cr.No.446/2021 of East Police Station,

Tirupati with the following averments:

The police have registered the case under provisions Sec. 370(A)(2) IPC and Sec. 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 7(1) of Immoral Trafc (Prevention) Act, 1956, stating that the A-1 to A-3 being organizers have been maintaining the brothel house. During the raids the police detected the ofence, arrested

A-1 to A-3 and A-4/customer. On the statements of LW-1/victim and confession of A-1 to A-3 recorded in the seizure mahazar, police registered the FIR and arrested the accused and produced for remand. The petitioners/A-2 & A-3 have been in judicial remand since 30.06.2021.

The petitioners submit that the petitioners/A-2 & A-3 are no way connected with the above ofence and they are innocents, but falsely implicated in this case. Material part of investigation has been completed and ready to produce sureties. They are bread winners to their respective 2 families. They have having permanent residents. Entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also fled, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 on bail.

2. Notice given to learned Addl.Public Prosecutor.

3. Heard both sides through blue jeans video app.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/ Accused No.2 & 3 argued that, the accused No.2 & 3 are innocents and they have not committed any ofence, but they were falsely implicated in this case. Entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also fled, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioners/ accused No.2 & 3 on bail.

5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that Entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also fled.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 can be granted

Bail as prayed for?

7. Point:-

In view of the prevailing Corona Virus circumstances and lockdown, the arguments of both the counsels were heard through video conference.

Perused the remand report appended to the petition. As per the remand report, the police have held raids on the information and with the permission of the SDPO and entered into the house of A-1 by 4.00 PM on 29.06.2021 and found A-4/customer and LW-1 participating sexual intercourse. Later the police enquired LW-1 and examined LW-1, A-1 and A-4 and prepared mahazar stating that A-1 with the help of A-2 and A-3 has been organizing prostitution for commission purpose by establishing the prostitution house in a public place. A-4 approached them and paid an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The said amount was shared by accused No.1 to 3 and LW-1. Later the police have arrested accused No.1 to 4 under the cover of mahazar and then registered FIR.In view of the submissions of Additional Public Prosecutor, entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also fled.

Considering the circumstances and the Corona pandemic situation, the petition is allowed granting bail to the petitioner/Accused.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed enlarging the Petitioners/ 3

Accused No.2 & 3 bail, on execution of personal bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands only) each and on production of two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of II AJFCM, Tirupati.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 20th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- U.U. Prasad,

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofence against Women, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to: The II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati Copy to: The Station House Ofcer, East PS, Tirupati Copy to the counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges.

CRLMP.BAIL/546/2021

Kannala Jyothi (A.1) vs The state rep. by its SHO of East P.S., Tirupati.

20 Jul 2021

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: CHITTOOR DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DIST., & SESSIONS JUDGE -CUM –

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN :: CHITTOOR.

Present : Sri. U.U.Prasad, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofences against Women, Chittoor.

Tuesday, the 20th (Twentieth) day of July, 2021

Crl.M.P.No. 546 of 2021

Cr. No. 446 of 2021 of East P.S., Tirupati

Kannala Jyothi, W/o K. Ravi, aged about 35 years, D.No.19-9-29/13, Lakshmipuram, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

..Petitioner/Accused No.1

And:

State rep. By S.H.O. of East P.S., Tirupati.

.. Respondent/ Complainant

This petition is coming on for hearing before me this day and upon perusing the petition, and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri I. Ramesh and Sri G. Kishore Kumar- Advocates for Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Smt. T.Nirmala- Additional Public Prosecutor for State, and upon hearing both sides, and upon perusing the material available on record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition fled Under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of Regular Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Cr.No.446/2021 of East Police Station,

Tirupati with the following averments:

A-1 to A-3 and A-4/customer. On the statements of LW-1/victim and confession of A-1 to A-3 recorded in the seizure mahazar, police registered the FIR and arrested the accused and produced for remand. The petitioner/A- 1 has been in judicial remand since 30.06.2021.

The petitioner submits that the petitioner/A-1 is no way connected with the above ofence and she is innocent, but falsely implicated in this case.

Material part of investigation has been completed and ready to produce sureties. He is bread winner to his family. He is having permanent resident.

Entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also fled, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail.

2. Notice given to learned Addl.Public Prosecutor.

3. Heard both sides through blue jeans video app.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/ Accused No.1 argued that, the accused No.1 is innocent and he has not committed any ofence, but he was falsely implicated in this case. Entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also fled, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioner/ accused No.1 on bail.

5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that Entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also fled.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.1 can be granted Bail

as prayed for?

7. Point:-

In view of the prevailing Corona Virus circumstances and lockdown, the arguments of both the counsels were heard through video conference.

Perused the remand report appended to the petition. As per the remand report, the police have held raids on the information and with the permission of the SDPO and entered into the house of A-1 by 4.00 PM on 29.06.2021 and found A-4/customer and LW-1 participating sexual intercourse. Later the police enquired LW-1 and examined LW-1, A-1 and A-4 and prepared mahazar stating that A-1 with the help of A-2 and A-3 has been organizing prostitution for commission purpose by establishing the prostitution house in a public place. A-4 approached them and paid an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The said amount was shared by accused No.1 to 3 and LW-1. Later the police have arrested accused No.1 to 4 under the cover of mahazar and then registered FIR. In view of the submissions of Additional Public Prosecutor, entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also fled.

Considering the circumstances and the Corona pandemic situation, the petition is allowed granting bail to the petitioner/Accused.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed enlarging the Petitioner/ 3

Accused bail, on execution of personal bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands only) and on production of two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of II AJFCM, Tirupati.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 20th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- U.U. Prasad,

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofence against Women, Chittoor.

CRLMP.BAIL/545/2021

Lebaka Mahesh (Accused) vs The state rep by Inspector of Police, SHO of M.R.Palle P.S., Tirupati.

22 Jul 2021

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: CHITTOOR DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DIST., & SESSIONS JUDGE -

CUM – SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN ::

CHITTOOR.

Present : Sri. U.U.Prasad, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofences against Women, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Twenty Second (22nd) day of July, 2021.

Crl.M.P.No. 545 / 2021

(Cr. No. 442 of 2021 of M.R. Palli Police Station, Tirupati)

Between:

Lebaka Mahesh, S/o L. Yellaiah, aged about 21 years, Nallthimmayapalli Village, Nandaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

..Petitioner/Accused

And:

The State rep. By S.H.O. of M.R. Palli P.S.

.. Respondent/ Complainant

This petition coming on this day before me through video conference for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Ajay Kumar - Advocate for Petitioner/Accused and Smt. T. Nirmala- Additional Public Prosecutor for State, and upon hearing both sides through blue jeans video app, and upon perusing the material available on record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition fled Under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of Regular

Bail to the Petitioner/Accused in Cr.No.442/2021 of M.R.Palli Police

Station, with the following averments:

As per the prosecution case the defacto complainant and the accused are relatives. Both the father and mother of defacto complainant went to Soudi Arabia leaving her alone. The accused and defacto complainant fell in love. The accused developed sexual intimacy, but she was warned by house owner Rajamma/LW-3. Hence she used to talk with accused over phone. For 2 to 3 months the accused has been avoiding her phone calls and not willing to marry the defacto complainant. Accordingly, she was deceived by the accused.

The petitioner submits that there were no activities between petitioner and defacto complainant since she fell in love with another 2 person and intended to marry him. There were no sexual contact between parties. Due to village disputes, false case has been registered against the accused. The petitioner is bread winner to his family and he is ready to produce sureties. 9 witnesses were examined and investigation is completed, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioner/accused on bail.

2. Notice given to learned Addl.Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused argued that, there are no contacts between the petitioner and defacto complainant, but false case has been registered due to disputes arose at the time of elections. Most part of the investigation has been completed, hence petition may be allowed enlarging the petitioner /accused on bail.

4.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued opposing the bail application and submitted that petitioner/accused and defacto complainant fell in love and the accused had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant on the pretext of love and promised to marry her. Now the accused deceived the defacto complainant. Investigation is pending, hence petition may be dismissed.

5. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the Petitioner/Accused can be granted Bail as

prayed for?

6. Point:-

In view of the prevailing Corona Virus circumstances lockdown, the arguments of both the counsels were heard through blue jeans video app. Perused the remand report etc., appended to the petition.

As per the case record, the accused had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant on the pretext of love and promised to marry her and now allegedly refused to marry her. Hence the report. In view of the submissions of Addl. Public Prosecutor investigation is pending. At this stage, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused, hence the petition is dismissed.

7. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me, this the 22nd day of July, 2021.

Sd/- U.U. Prasad,

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofence against Women, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copies to:

1. The III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati

2. The Station House Ofcer, M.R.Palli Police Station, Tirupati

3. The counsel for the petitioner on payment of process.

Order Record 554 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRLMP.BAIL/565/2021	Mallela Bhuvaneswar @ Bhuvan (A.3) vs The state of A.P. rep. by its SHO of Tiruchanuru P.S., Tirupati.	26 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/545/2021	Lebaka Mahesh (Accused) vs The state rep by Inspector of Police, SHO of M.R.Palle P.S., Tirupati.	22 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/548/2021	Maddila Manohar (Accused) vs The state rep. by ths SHO of Tiruchanur P.S.	22 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/546/2021	Kannala Jyothi (A.1) vs The state rep. by its SHO of East P.S., Tirupati.	20 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/547/2021	Kotikalapudi Raju (A.2) vs The state rep. by its SHO of East P.S., Tirupati.	20 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/539/2021	Thammisetty Chittibabu @ Babu (A.1) vs The SHO of II town P.S., Tirumala.	19 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/540/2021	Y.Gajendra vs The SHO of Bangarupalem P.S.	19 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/543/2021	Komasani suresh Reddy (A.2) vs The state rep., by its SHO of II Town P.S., Tirumala.	19 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/534/2021	R. Gunasekhar (A.1) vs The SHO of Chittoor II Town P.S.	17 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/530/2021	S. Vijaya Bhaskar vs The SHO of Puttur Urban P.S.	16 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/531/2021	Pasala Madhu vs The SHO of V.Kota P.S.	16 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/505/2021	Mannepulu Munaswamy (A.3) vs The SHO of Alipiri P.S.m, Tirupathi.	14 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/521/2021	Kullai Srinivasulu (A.1) vs The SHO of Chowdepalli P.S.	14 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/519/2021	Neerugatti Gangadhar babu @ Gangadhara (A.1) vs The SHO of Panjani P.S.	13 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/514/2021	S. Kareemunnisa (A.2) vs The SHO of Palamaner Urban P.S.	12 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/515/2021	S. Bareshavalli (A.1) vs The SHO of Palamaner Urban P.S.	12 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/498/2021	S. Sivasankar vs The SHO of Puttur Urban P.S.	09 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/508/2021	Kannala Jyothi (A.1) vs The SHO of East P.S., Tirupati.	09 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/509/2021	Kotikalapudi Raju (A.2) vs The SHO of East P.S., Tirupati.	09 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/510/2021	Bathhula Dilli Babu (A.4) vs The SHO of East P.S., Tirupati.	09 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/483/2021	Shaik Imtiyaz Basha (A.1) vs The SHO of Gurramkonda P.S.	08 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/487/2021	Shaik Dilroz Bagam (A.2) vs The SHO of Gurramkonda P.S.	08 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/492/2021	Thondamanati Dhananjaya Reddy @ Dhananjayulu vs The SHO of Yerpedu P.S.	08 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/495/2021	M. Velu @ Velu Reddy @ Moonju Mama (Accused) vs The SHO of Pichatur P.S.	07 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/478/2021	Maddila Manohar vs The state rep. by the SHO of Tiruchanuru P.S.	06 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/484/2021	Mamidiguntdam Venugopal @ Venu (A.2) vs The SHO of K.V.Palli P.S.	06 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/496/2021	Randrasi Mallikarjun (A.1) vs The S.H.O. of Chandragiri P.S.	06 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/485/2021	Madhiri Reddi Prasad (A.1) vs Vsthe SHO of Chowdepalli P.S.	03 Jul 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/466/2021	S. Karremunnisa (A.2) vs The SHO of Urban P.S., Palamaner.	30 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/467/2021	Smt. Reshma (A.3) vs The SHO of Urban P.S., Palamaner.	30 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/474/2021	Y. Gajendra vs The SHO of A.P. rep. by SHO, Bangarupalem P.S.	30 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/456/2021	Neerugatti Gangadhar Babu @ Gangadhara (A.1) vs The SHO of Panjani P.S.	29 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/458/2021	Chalamakoti @ Chalamakota Reddeppa vs The SHO of Vayalpad P.S.	29 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/468/2021	P. Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnappa vs The SHo of V.Kota Urban P.S.	28 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/427/2021	S. Vijaya Bhaskar vs The SHO of Puttur Urban Police station.	26 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/453/2021	P. Thirumalesh vs The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudipala Police station.	26 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/442/2021	Mannepula Munaswamy (A.3) vs The state rep. by the SHO of Alipiri P.S., Tirupati.	25 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/424/2021	Komasani Suresh Reddy (A.2) vs The state rep., by SHO of II Town P.S., Tirumala.	24 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/441/2021	B. Aravind (A.1) vs The state of A.P. rep. by the SHO of Nagari Urban P.S.	24 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/443/2021	Patan Sameer Khan @ Shamsheed Khan (A.1) vs The SHO of SVU Campus P.S., Tirupati.	24 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/445/2021	Thammisetty Chittibabu @ Babu (A.1) vs The SHO of II Town P.S., Tirumala.	24 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/449/2021	Venarchi Krishnamurthy (A.1) vs The state rep. by the S.I. of Police, Madanapalli Taluk P.S.	24 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/457/2021	Racharla Mallikarjuna (A.1) vs The SHO of K.V.Palli P.S.	24 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/461/2021	Mannem Parthiv (A.2) vs The SHo of S.V.U campus P.S., Tirupati.	24 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/448/2021	M. Velu @ Velu Reddy @ Moonju Mama vs The State rep. SHO of Pichatur P.S.	23 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/412/2021	Thulasamma ( A.2) vs The SHO of Chandragiri P.S., Tirupati.	22 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/413/2021	Randrasi mallikarjun (A.1) vs The SHO of Chadnragiri P.S., Tirupati.	22 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/100014/2021	S. Murugan @ Muruga (Accused No.6) vs The SHO of Chittoor I Town P.S.	22 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/428/2021	Mamidigundam Venugopal @ Venu vs The state of A.P. rep by SHO, K.V.Palli P.S.	19 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/429/2021	Pedduru Gangaraju vs The SHO of chowdepalle P.S.	19 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/430/2021	Madhiri Reddi Prasad (A.1) vs Thd State of A.P., rep. by SHO, Chowdepalli P.S.	19 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/408/2021	M. Sudhakar (Accused) vs The SHO of Thavanampalli P.S.	17 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/421/2021	D.Velu (A.1) vs The state rep. by S.I. of police, Kuppam Urban, P.S.	17 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/422/2021	A. Narayanamoorthy (A.1) vs The state rep by the SHO, Puttur P.S., Puttur.	17 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/415/2021	P.Ramakrishna @ Ramakrisnappa vs The SHO of V.Kota Urban P.S.	16 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/404/2021	Dasari Anji (Accused) vs The SHO of Madanapalle I town P.S.	14 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/409/2021	Venarchi Krishnamurthy (Accused No.1) vs The state rep. by the S.I. of police, Madanapalli taluk P.S.	14 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/407/2021	M. Velu @ Velu Reddy @ Moonju Mama (Accused) vs The state rep. by SHO of Pichatur P.S.	11 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/416/2021	Racharla mallikarjuna (A.1) vs The SHO of K.V.Palli P.S.	11 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/417/2021	Chalamakoti @ Chalamkota Reddeppa vs The SHO of Vayalapad P.S.	11 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/418/2021	Neerugatti Gangadhar babu @ Gangadhara (A.1) vs The SHO of Panjani P.S.	11 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/393/2021	C. Satish Kumar (Accused) vs The state rep by the SHO, Renigunta P.S.	07 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/388/2021	Kuputuru Ashok vs The SHO of Alipiri PS	03 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/370/2021	Malluru Nyamathulla @ M.Nyam Thulla (A.1) vs The state rep. by the SHO, Kalakada P.S.	02 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/384/2021	Chalamakoti@Chalamakota Reddeppa vs The SHO of Vayalpadu PS	02 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/321/2021	Abhirami @ G. Abhirami (A.4) vs The state rep. by SHO of M.R. Palli P.S., Tirupati.	01 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/333/2021	K.Ashok (A.1) vs The state rep. by its SHO of Alipiri P.S. Tirupati.	01 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/369/2021	Racharla Mallikarjuna (A.1) vs The SHO of K.V.Palli P.S.	01 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/371/2021	Neerugatti Gangadhar Babu @ Gangadhara (A.1) vs The SHO of Panjani P.S.	01 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/372/2021	Neerugatti Narayanappa (A.2) vs The SHO of Panjani P.S.	01 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/377/2021	P. Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnappa vs The SHO, V.Kota Urban Police Station	01 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/378/2021	Mannepula Nagaraju vs The SHO , Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati	01 Jun 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/306/2021	D.Velu (A.1) vs The state rep. by S.I. of Police, Kuppam Urban P.S.	31 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/375/2021	Mamidigundam Venugopal @ Venu vs THe SHO, KV Palli Police Station	31 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/330/2021	B.Kala (A.2) vs The state of A.P., rep. by the station House officer, Nagari Urban P.S.	28 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/331/2021	Madhiri Reddi Prasad (A.1) vs The SHO of Chowdepalli P.S.	28 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/358/2021	M. Velu @ Velu Reddy @ Moonju Mama vs The State rep. SHO of Pichatur P.S.	28 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/327/2021	M. Sudhakar vs The SHO of Thavanampalli P.S.	27 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/351/2021	Pedduru Gangaraju vs The SHO of Chowdepalle P.S.	27 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/359/2021	A. Narayanamoorthy (A.1) vs The state rep by the SHO of Puttur P.S., Puttur.	27 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/360/2021	C. Satish Kumar vs The state rep by the SHO, Renigunta P.S.	27 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/315/2021	P. Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnappa vs The state rep. by SHO of V.Kota Urban P.S.	19 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/322/2021	Mannepalli Munemma (A.2) vs The state rep. by the SHO of Alipiri P.S., Tirupati Urban P.S.	19 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/323/2021	Mannepula Nagaraju (A.1) vs The state rep. by the SHO Alipiri P.S, Tirupati Urban Police District.	19 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/325/2021	Siddappagari Suresh vs The sate of A.P. rep. by the SHO Punganur Urban P.S.	19 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/293/2021	Chalamakoti @ Chalamakota Reddeppa vs The S.H.O. of Vayalpad P.S.	10 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/302/2021	A. Narayanamoorthy (A.1) vs The sate rep by the SHO of Puttur P.S.	10 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/307/2021	Racharla Mallikarjuna (A.1) vs The SHO of K.V.Palli P.S.	10 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/305/2021	T. Suri Babu vs The state of A.P. rep., by its SHO of K.V.B. Puram P.S.	07 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/297/2021	C. Satish Kumar vs The State rep. by the SHO, Renigunta P.S.	05 May 2021	Order	—
SC/13/2017	The Inspector of Police, M.R. Palli, P.S., Tirupati vs Bukya Ravindra Naik	04 May 2021	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/294/2021	C. Siva Kumar (A.1) vs The state rep. by SHO, Chandragiri P.S.	04 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/288/2021	Salman @ Praveen Kumar (A.8) vs The state rep., by SHO of N.R.Pet P.S.	03 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/289/2021	Selvaraj (A.3) vs The state rep., by SHO of N.R.Pet P.S.	03 May 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/267/2021	Mannepula Nagaraju (A.1) vs The state rep. by the SHO, Alipiri P.S., Tirupati Urban Police District.	30 Apr 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/269/2021	Mannepalli Munemma (A.2) vs The state rep. by the SHO Alipiri P.S., Tirupati Urban Police District.	30 Apr 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/279/2021	Siddapaagari Suresh vs The state of A.P. rep by the SHO of Punganur Urban P.S.	30 Apr 2021	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/280/2021	Stanley (A.1) vs The state rep. by SHO of N.R.Pet P.S.	30 Apr 2021	Order	—
SC/149/2016	The Inspector of Police, Kuppam Circle vs J.Sivappa	26 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/274/2021	T. Suri Babu vs The state of A.P. rep. by its SHO of K.V.B.Puram P.S.	26 Apr 2021	Order	—

Showing 100 of 554 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jul 2021		28
Jun 2021		44
May 2021		22
Apr 2021		24
Mar 2021		36
Feb 2021		27
Jan 2021		17
Dec 2020		31
Nov 2020		44
Oct 2020		17
Sep 2020		6
Aug 2020		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri U.U. Prasad handled?

Sri U.U. Prasad has handled 555 court orders since 2011 at Prl District Courts, Chittoor. The average disposal rate is 4 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri U.U. Prasad hear?

Based on available records, Sri U.U. Prasad primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Where is Sri U.U. Prasad currently posted?

Sri U.U. Prasad is posted as VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri U.U. Prasad available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri U.U. Prasad are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri U.U. Prasad dispose cases?

Sri U.U. Prasad disposes approximately 4 cases per month, based on 555 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Since when is Sri U.U. Prasad serving?

Sri U.U. Prasad has been serving at Prl District Courts, Chittoor since 2011.

Case Types

CRLMP 48%

SC 36%

EP 7%

OS 3%

AS 2%

MVOP 2%

CC 1%

CMA 1%

Posting History

Aug 2018 — Jul 2021

VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE · 555 orders
Feb 2011 — May 2015

Senior Civil Judge

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Aruna Sarika

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

373 orders

Sri K.Srinivasa Rao

I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Sri N.Sreenivasa Rao

VIII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

2 orders

Smt T. Haritha

VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Smt M.V.N. Padmaja

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

883 orders

K Ravi

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

75 orders

Ms. D. Uma Devi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,381 orders

Smt M. Madhavi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,387 orders

Boora Sirisha

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

22 orders

Sri Shaik Babajan

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,433 orders

Smt V Silpa

SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT

467 orders

P. Vennela

JFCM, SPL. MOBILE COURT

552 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Courts, Chittoor