Sri Y.Nagaraja

1

APGU000032962026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: SRI Y. NAGA RAJA,

II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.708 of 2026

Cr.No.198 of 2026 of Pattabhipuram Police Station

Between:-

Bhaskaruni Venkata Hanumath Manikanta Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy alias Murthy, S/o.late Venkata Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, aged about 32 years, R/o.Sarikondapalem village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

... Petitioner / Accused No.1

-And- The State : Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, represented by its Additional Public Prosecutor, Guntur.

... Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came before me on 14.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Hari Sankara Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS, 2023) (437 and 439 of Cr.P.C) on behalf of the Petitioner / Accused No.1 to grant regular bail in Cr.No.198/2026 of Pattabhipuram Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 318 (4), 336 (2), 338, 340 (2), 351 (2), 79 r/w.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNS, 2023).

2

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor received the notice and opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

3. Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner, and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

4. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.1 is entitled for anticipatory

bail for the alleged offences under Sections 61 (2), 318 (4), 336 (2), 338,

340 (2), 351 (2), 79 r/w. Section 3 (5) of BNS, as prayed for?”

5. POINT ANSWERED :

On perusal of the Case Diary, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is studying Intermediate in Oxford Junior College, Guntur along with approximately 20 other students, paid the application fees for JEE

MAINS SESSION-II to Accused No.1 who is Computer Operator and Dean's

Personal Assistant at their college. Accused No.1 assured them that the applications were submitted. When the National Testing Agency (NTA) released application status updates, the defacto complainant checked in the official website and found her details are missing (Status: Invalid ) about 13 other students faced the same issue. When they questioned Accused No.1 by stating that they sent money to him through UPI, but he did not upload their applications, after that they went to Principal / Accused No.4 and asked her whether Accused No.1 uploaded their applications to attend JEE MAIN

SESSIONS II or not, for which she did not respond properly, then they again

asked Accused No.1 about the same, for which he stated that their applications were allotted to final phase and would appear later. They trusted his word and waited for some of the days. After release of Hall tickets for 3

Session-II, they checked the website, and found that their names were not in the Website. When they contacted Accused No.1, he didn't give proper reply by saying that he is in meeting, he is in busy, every day defacto complainant and other students used to contact Accused No.1 by phone, but he did not give proper answer. On 06.04.2026 evening Accused No.1 sent their admission cards in PDF form through Whats App, then they verified the same and found that it is shift-1 timing 03.00 p.m. to 06.00 p.m. on that they felt doubt, contacted Accused No.1, for which he replied that on 08.04.2026 there is only one shift. Believing his words on 07.04.2026 they have taken photocopies and pasted their photos on hall tickets and impressed with their left hands thumb. On 08.04.2026 defacto complainant and other students went to Priyadarshini College, located at Prathipadu road to attend JEE

MAINS SESSION-II, but the exam authorities did not allow them into exam centre and said that their ID information is not available with them, about 8 persons also not admitted to the exam, because their ID information was not available. The college authorities sent one letter to NTA through them after came out from the campus, they informed the same to their parents, on that their parents asked Accused Nos.1 and 2 by phone, but they did not respond.

On that they went to Accused No.4, but she did not give any answer and stated that she is not concerned in this regard and Accused No.2 insulted their parents with abusive words, and when they tried to contact Accused No.1, but his phone was switched off, and whereabouts of him are not known. After that on 09.04.2026 defacto complainant and other victims went to college at 09.00 a.m. asked about the facts of the college authorities, but they did not take care of them, during two years Intermediate tenure they paid an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/-.lakhs towards college fee. They also paid an amount of

Rs.1,000/- to Accused No.1 for applying Eamcet examination and Rs.1,000/- towards fee for JEE MAINS SESSIONS-II. On verification they came to know 4 that Eamcet exam application was also not filled up. When their parents questioned, they stated that if they pay late fee, they will apply the same. On that some persons paid late fees of Rs.10,000/- and applied. Though the defacto complainant and others waited at college till evening, but there was no response from Accused Nos.1 to 5. Due to their negligence, defacto complainant and 9 other students could not attend the exam. Further,

Accused Nos.1 to 5 insulted them by using abusive words and threatened them with dire consequences. Further, Accused No.1 did not apply for NEET exams and there are about victims of nearly 30 and there are about nearly 15 persons relating to JEE MAINS SESSION. Basing on the report of defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.198 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 61 (2), 318 (4), 336 (2), 338, 340 (2), 351 (2), 79 r/w. Section 3 (5) of BNS was registered on 15.04.2026. During the course of investigation, on 15.04.2026

Accused No.1 was arrested and produced before learned Magistrate. Since then, he has been in judicial custody.

6. In the bail petition, the Petitioner / Accused No.1 contends that he is

Personal Assistant to Dean and he is no way concerned to the alleged offences. Except the offence under Section 338 BNS, remaining offences are all punishable below seven years. Further, as per the recitals of First

Information Report, it is not case of the defacto complainant that the petitioner / Accused No.1 threatened and insulted the modesty of woman, therefore Sections 351 (2) and 79 of BNS are not applicable. The petitioner further contends that he is a Personal Assistant and he has nothing to do with the alleged incidents mentioned in the First Information Report and he never undertook the process of applications of the students and the alleged acts referred in the First Information Report are not done by the petitioner. The petitioner never received any amount from anybody including defacto complainant towards applying examinations, such as JEE Mains, NEET and 5

EAMCET. The allegations made against the petitioner are false. Hence, prays to grant anticipatory bail.

7.On behalf of petitioner relied on a decision in case of S.W.Palanitkar &

Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2001 0 Supreme (SC) 1469 at para

No.10, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows :

“10.The ingredients of the offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm .to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.”

In case of Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Anr, 2000 0 Supreme (SC) 667, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para Nos.14 to 16 held as follows :

“14.On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. in the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. “15.In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his 6 subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” “16.Judged on the touchstone of the principles noted above, the present case, in our considered view warrants interference inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 IPC and its allied offences under sections 418 and 423 has not been made out. So far as the offences under sections 469, 504 and 120B are concerned even the basic allegations making out a case thereunder are not contained in the complaint. That being the position the case comes within the first category of cases enumerated in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (Supra) and as such warrants interference by the Court. Reading the avernments in the complaint in entirety and accepting the allegations to be true, the ingredients of intentional deception on the part of the accused right at the beginning of the negotiations for the transaction has neither been expressly stated nor indirectly suggested in complaint. All that the respondent No. 2 has alleged against the appellants is that they did not disclose to him that one of their brothers had filed a partition suit which was pending. The requirement that the information was not disclosed by the appellants intentionally in order to make the respondent No. 2 part with property is not alleged expressly or even impliedly in the complaint. Therefore the core postulate of dishonest intention in order to deceive the complainant- respondent no.2 is not made out even accepting all the averments in the complaint on their face value. In such a 7 situation continuing the criminal proceeding against the accused will be, in our considered view, an abuse of process of the court. The High Court was not right in declining to quash the complaint and the proceeding initiated on the basis of the same.”

In case of Mithun Bhatnagar vs. The State (GNCT of Delhi), reported in 2021 0 Supreme (Del) 645, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.12 held as follows :

“12. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, has observed as under:

“21………….

“22………….

“23………….

“24.In the instant case, we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of justice".

8. On perusal of the record, a case in Cr.No.198/2026 of Pattabhipuram

Police Station was registered against Accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under sections 61 (2), 318 (4), 336 (2), 338, 340 (2), 351 (2), 79 r/w. Section 3 (5) of BNS basing on the report of defacto complainant. On perusal of the 8 material on record, in this case, Accused No.1 was arrested on 15.04.2026, since then he has been in judicial custody. Further, the earlier bail petition was dismissed by this Court on merits vide Crl.M.P.No.557 of 2026 dated 22.04.2026. On perusal of the record, the investigation officer during the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence and also examined the material witnesses.

By considering the stage of investigation and also considering the length of the remand period of the accused in judicial custody, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner / Accused No.1 with conditions.

8.In the result, this petition is allowed, granting bail to the Petitioner /

Accused No.1 with the following conditions :

i) the Petitioner / Accused No.1 shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, for Proh.&

Excise Court, Guntur, ii)the Petitioner / Accused No.1 shall always be available for investigation, iii)the Petitioner / Accused No.1 shall not cause threat to the witnesses, iv)the Petitioner / Accused No.1 shall not indulge in any criminal activities, and

v) the Petitioner / Accused No.1 shall be available to the Investigating

Agency and shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every

Monday and Friday in between 10.00 a.m to 5 p.m for a period of three months, or till filing of the Charge Sheet, whichever is earlier.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15 th of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y.NAGA RAJA,

II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

9

Copy to:

1.Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Proh. & Excise, Guntur.

2.The Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District.

Uploaded through:

eCourts via Case Information System.

Crl.M.P.No.694 of 20261/4

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI Y.NAGARAJA

II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.694 of 2026

in

Crime No.14 of 2021 of C.I.D Police Station, Andhra Pradesh,

Amaravathi, at Mangalagiri.

Between:

Penke Adibabu, S/o.Murthy, Aged about 39 years, R/o.Door.No.6-95,Near Ravindra Bharathi Public School, Tadepalli Post and Mandal, Guntur District. … Petitioner/Accused No.4 - And -

The State: CID PS, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

… Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 15.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for Petitioner/A4 and the Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/complainant and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed on behalf of Petitioner/Accused No.4 under Section 438 (2) (iii) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C) / Section 482 (2) (iii) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS, 2023) to relax the conditional order i.e the petitioner / Accused No.4 shall not leave India till completion of investigation without prior permission of this Court for a period of one month from 10.05.2026 to 06.07.2026.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor received the notice and opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by filing counter.

Crl.M.P.No.694 of 20262/4

3.Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner, and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

4.The point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.4 is entitled to relax the

condition imposed by this Court vide in Crl.M.P.No.565 of 2022 dated

21.04.2022 with regard to leave India for a period of one month from

10.05.2026 to 06.07.2026 in order to participate in ‘Morris Cerullo World

Evangelism Worldwide School of Ministry’ in San Diego, California, as

prayed for?”

5.According to the case of the prosecution, the Bank Officials of State

Bank of India, Uppalapadu Branch, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District conspired with the Petitioner/A4 and other accused and sanctioned nine (9) home loans under home realty scheme, later the borrowers defaulted in repayment of loan amounts and thereby, the loan accounts became NPA and as such, the Bank sustained loss to a tune of Rs.1,61,93,027/- out of which the Accused 1 to 17 got wrongful gain. The incident occurred prior to the date of 22.06.2021 at State Bank of India, Uppalapadu Branch, Pedakakani

Mandal, Guntur District. The allegations against the present Petitioner/A4 was that he colluded with the valuer of the State Bank of India, Uppalapadu Branch and availed loan of Rs.21 Lakhs according to the F.I.R and Part I Case Diary dated.22.06.2021. However, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused

No.4 was that the valuation of the property was shown at Rs.30 Lakhs against the value of Rs.7,50,000/- and obtained the said loan amount. The further allegation against the Petitioner/A4 was that he committed default in payment of the loan amount and the account became NPA. Basing on the report given by the defacto complainant viz., Smt.Mood Nagaveni, Regional Manager,

State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri registered a case in Cr.No.14/2021 under

Crl.M.P.No.694 of 20263/4

Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) on 22.06.2021 at 11.00 hours and took up investigation.

6.On behalf of State, opposing this petition, filed counter contending that the investigation is in final stage and the charge sheet will be filed soon after the approval from the Director General of Police, CID, A.P and that the petitioner did not submit any valid proofs with regard to his invitation, moreover it is private invitation by the Church. It is the further contention of the complainant that there is a possibility to the petitioner to escape from the investigation and that not possible to the prosecution to secure the presence of the petitioner at the time of trial, and prays to dismiss the petition.

7.On perusal of the material on record, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.565 of 2022 seeking anticipatory bail. On 21.04.2022 this Court allowed the said petition allowed with certain conditions, out of which one of the condition is that the petitioner / Accused No.4 shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. Now, the petitioner filed this petition that he being a

Church Pastor, Kalvary Temple, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, received invitation, that he is invited to be attend in ‘Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

Worldwide School of Ministry’ in San Diego, California, from 10.05.2026 to 06.07.2026 and to that effect he filed copy of said official letter of invitation, and in view of the same, seeking permission to leave India for a period of one month from 10.05.2026 to 06.07.2026 in order to participate in the said programme by relaxing the condition in Crl.M.P.No.565 of 2022 dated 21.04.2022.

8.Contrary to that, though the prosecution filed counter denying the request of the petitioner, did not submit any irregularities with regard to breach of conditions committed by the petitioner / Accused No.4 vide Crl.M.P.No.565 of 2022 dated 21.04.2022 on the file of this Court and that with regard to

Crl.M.P.No.694 of 20264/4

permission orders obtained by the petitioner for similar request to go to

Abroad vide 1086 of 2023 dated 29.09.2023 on the file of this Court.

9.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that it is a fit case to allow the petition by relaxing the condition imposed against the Petitioner / Accused No.4 vide Crl.M.P.No.565 of 2022 dated 21.04.2022 in connection with Cr.No.14 of 2021 of C.I.D Police Station,

Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati at Mangalagiri for a certain period i.e from 20.05.2026 to 20.06.2026 to participate in ‘Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

Worldwide School of Ministry’ in San Diego, California. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed.

10.In the result, the petition is partly allowed, by relaxing the conditions imposed by this Court vide Crl.M.P.No.565 of 2022 dated 21.04.2022 in connection with Cr.No.14 of 2021 of C.I.D Police Station, Andhra Pradesh,

Amaravati at Mangalagiri, to leave India for certain period i.e from i.e from 20.05.2026 to 20.06.2026 to participate in ‘Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

Worldwide School of Ministry’ in San Diego, California.

Rest of the conditions imposed by this Court vide Crl.M.P.No.565 of 2022 dated 21.04.2022 in connection with Cr.No.14 of 2021 of C.I.D Police

Station, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati at Mangalagiri, are remained intact.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grade – I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y.Nagaraja,

II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:- The Judicial Magistrate of I Class – Cum - Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. Uploaded through: eCourts via Case Information System.

1

APGU000032332026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: SRI Y. NAGA RAJA,

II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Monday, this the 18 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.701 of 2026 in Crime No.47 of 2026 of Amaravathi Police Station,

Guntur Rural.

Between:-

Manchineni Surendra Nath @ Surendra, S/o.Jagan Mohan Rao, aged about 55 years, R/o.D.No.1-189/1, Didugu, Amaravathi Mandal, Palnadu District.

... Petitioner / Accused No.2

-And-

The State: Station House Officer, Amaravathi Police Station, Represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, District Court, Guntur.

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before me on 13.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS, 2023) (438 of Cr.P.C) on behalf of the

Petitioner / Accused No.2 to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.47 of 2026 of

Amaravathi Police Station of the offence punishable under Sections 118 (2), 351 (2) r/w.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyana Sanhita, 2023.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor received the notice and opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

2

3. Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner, and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

4. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail for the alleged offence under Sections 118 (2), 351 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS, 2023 in connection with Cr.No.47 of 2026 of Amaravathi Police Station, as prayed for?”

5. POINT ANSWERED:-

As seen from the Case Diary, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant by name Shaik Ali Basha, resident of Didugu village of

Amaravati Mandal, Palnadu District gave statement to police that he is eking out his livelihood by running petty shop business adjacent to Sri Lakshmi

Wines shop at Didugu village by selling glasses, chips and Chicken Pakodi to the persons who consumed liquor in the said wine shop. The petitioner herein used to come and consume liquor in the said wines shop and used to quarrel with him every time stating that he would remove the shop of defacto complainant and that one Bandi Nageswara Rao who also accompanied and supports him. On 09.04.2026 at about 1-30 p.m the said Bandi Nageswara

Rao and the petitioner herein came to wine shop and consumed liquor, and both of them abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and further stated that they are failing to remove the shop of the defacto complainant and later the petitioner herein asked him for a chair, for which he stated that there is no chair vacant for him, for that Bandi Nageswara Rao grew wild and abused him and further at the instigation of petitioner herein attacked him with a knife, caused bleeding injury over his left hand fingers and also threatened him with dire consequences and on the arrival of neighbours, they left the place, and later he was shifted to Government Hospital, Amaravathi for treatment, while he was undergoing treatment, Amaravathi Police came and 3 recorded his statement. Basing on the said statement, a case in Cr.No.47 of 2026 was registered against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under sections 118 (2), 351 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS.

6.In the bail petition, the counsel for petitioner contends that First

Information Report is belated and concocted one. He is innocent and did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner contends that no specific overt acts were attributed against him. The petitioner further contends that the injured was discharged from the hospital and attending his day to day activities. He is having fixed place of abode and sufficient solvent sureties for his attendance, and that he will abide any conditions imposed by this Court in the event of granting of bail, and prays to grant anticipatory bail.

7. On perusal of the record, initially a case in Cr.No.47 of 2026 for the offence under sections 118 (2), 351 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS was registered at

Amaravathi Police Station against Accused Nos.1 and 2, out of them the present petitioner is Accused No.2. During the course of investigation, the investigation officer altered the Section of law from Section 118 (2) to 118 (1) of BNS. The alleged offences against the petitioner are now under Section 118 (1), 351(2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS. The offence under Section 118 (1) of BNS is punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years, or fine of

Rs.20,000/-, or both, which is cognizable and non-bailable in nature. The offence under Section 351 (2) of BNS is punishable with imprisonment for a period of two years, or fine, or both, which is Non- cognizable and bailable in nature.

In this matter, the Investigation Officer has examined five material witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and further served notice under Section 35 of BNSS served on Accused No.1. In this 4 case, except await of wound certificate of injured, the material part of the investigation is completed. Since the both the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment below seven years, further notice under Section 35 of

BNSS was already served against Accused No.1.

In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the Investigation

Officer can be directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in case of ‘ Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another’ instead of granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner / Accused No.2. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10. In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner /

Accused No.2 is directed to appear before the Station House Officer,

Amaravathi Police Station, Palnadu District within fifteen days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the concerned Station House Officer, shall follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y.NAGA RAJA,

II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Copy to: 1.II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class – Cum – II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli. 2.The Station House Officer, Amaravathi Police Station, Palnadu District. Uploaded through: eCourts via Case Information System.

1

APGU000030572026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: SRI Y. NAGA RAJA,

II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.636 of 2026

Cr.No.100 of 2026 of Thulluru Police Station

Between:-

Thadikonda Surya Venkata Sambamurthy, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 46 years, Farmer, R/o.H.No.2-31, Bhimalapuram, PPST, West Godavari District.

... Petitioner / Accused No.2

-And- The State : Station House Officer, Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District, represented by its Additional Public Prosecutor, Guntur.

... Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came before me on 07.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri Sk.Rahamtulla, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS, 2023) (438 of Cr.P.C) on behalf of the

Petitioner / Accused No.2 to grant anticipatory bail in Cr.No.100/2026 of

Thulluru Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 318 (4), 326 (2), 336 (2), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS, 2023.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor received the notice and opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

2

3. Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner, and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

4. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.2 is entitled for anticipatory

bail for the alleged offence under Sections 318 (4), 326 (2), 336 (2), 338,

336 (3), 340 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS ?”

5. POINT ANSWERED :

As seen from the Case Diary, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Venugopal Vabbilisetty, R/o.Miyapur, Hyderabad stated that in the year 2016 he invested funds and purchased Ac.1-00 cents of land in S.No.42/A1 of Abbarajupalem village in the name of Partnership Firm

Vishwak Constructions. Later, under LPS with AP CRDA, 1000 square yards plot was allotted jointly in his name and in the name of Accused No.1.

Subsequently, Accused No.1 with dishonest intention forged his signatures and thumb impressions illegally reconstituted Firm which was already subject matter of FIR No.274 of 2022 (CCS, Hyderabad) wherein charge sheet was filed and the matter is pending for trial. While so, again Accused Nos.1 and 2 by using forged documents misled AP CRDA authorities and got executed a rectification deed dated 19.06.2024 fraudulently deleting the name of defacto complainant and inserted the name of Accused No.2. Thereafter, they sold the said 1000 square yards plot vide sale deed dated 01.08.2024. Thereby misappropriated his 50% share. Thus, the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust by using forged documents as genuine.

6. In the bail petition, the Petitioner / Accused No.2 contends that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner contends that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature arising out of partnership and property 3 transactions. The complainant is attempting to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case to harass the petitioner. The alleged transaction pertains to the year 2016, whereas the complaint has been lodged only on 13.04.2026 after an unexplained delay of nearly 10 years, such an abnormal delay clearly indicates that the complaint is an afterthought and filed with malafide intention.

The petitioner contends that the very same subject matter is already under adjudication in FIR No.274 of 2022 (CCS, Hyderabad) in which a charge sheet has been filed and the case is pending trial. The petitioner has already taken appropriate legal steps, including filing a quash petition. Hence, registration of present FIR amounts to abuse of process of law. The petitioner further contends that the complainant case with Criminal Petition No.4044 of 2025 was referred to the Arbitration to a retired Judge of High court on 18.03.2026 and the proceedings are pending till now and that the same complainant filed another case vide Case No.COP 103 of 2022 before the Commercial Court of

Telangana State and the same is also pending till now. The petitioner contends that the complainant belongs to Hyderabad, Telangana State and the partnership firm was registered at Hyderabad, and that the retirement and amendment of new partnership deed is also executed at Hyderabad,

Telangana State only. Hence, the complaint made before the SHO, Thulluru

Police Station is without jurisdiction, and prays to grant anticipatory bail.

7.The learned defence counsel argued that in this matter, Accused No.1 was already arrested and released on bail. The present petitioner who was shown as Accused No.2 was a farmer and he is no way concerned with the alleged offence. Hence, prays to grant bail.

8.On perusal of the material on record, a case in Cr.No.100/2026 of of

Thulluru Police Station was registered for the offence under Sections 318 (4), 4 326 (2), 336 (2), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS against Accused Nos.1 and 2. The specific overt acts against the present petitioner / Accused No.2 is that himself along with Accused No.1 by using forged documents, mislead AP

CRDA authorities and got executed a rectification deed dated 19.06.2024 by fraudulently deleting the name of defacto complainant Venugopal Vabbilisetty and thereby inserted the name of the petitioner / Accused No.2. Thereafter, both Accused Nos.1 and 2 sold 1000 square yards plot vide sale deed dated 01.08.2024. Thereby misappropriated 50% share of the defacto complainant.

On perusal of the record, investigation is still pending and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and also may avoid investigation and he will not co-operate with

Police for completion of investigation. Further, custodial interrogation is required to trace out the original forged documents and to identify modus operandi. The jurisdiction aspects as pointed out by the petitioner can be decided at this stage.

By considering the nature of alleged offences, and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11 th of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y.NAGA RAJA,

II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Copy to: 1.Judicial Magistrate of I Class – Cum – Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. 2.The Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District. Uploaded through: eCourts via Case Information System.

1

APGU000030572026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: SRI Y. NAGA RAJA,

II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.636 of 2026

Cr.No.100 of 2026 of Thulluru Police Station

Between:-

Thadikonda Surya Venkata Sambamurthy, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 46 years, Farmer, R/o.H.No.2-31, Bhimalapuram, PPST, West Godavari District.

... Petitioner / Accused No.2

-And- The State : Station House Officer, Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District, represented by its Additional Public Prosecutor, Guntur.

... Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came before me on 07.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri Sk.Rahamtulla, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS, 2023) (438 of Cr.P.C) on behalf of the

Petitioner / Accused No.2 to grant anticipatory bail in Cr.No.100/2026 of

Thulluru Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 318 (4), 326 (2), 336 (2), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS, 2023.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor received the notice and opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

2

3. Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner, and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

4. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.2 is entitled for anticipatory

bail for the alleged offence under Sections 318 (4), 326 (2), 336 (2), 338,

336 (3), 340 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS ?”

5. POINT ANSWERED :

As seen from the Case Diary, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Venugopal Vabbilisetty, R/o.Miyapur, Hyderabad stated that in the year 2016 he invested funds and purchased Ac.1-00 cents of land in S.No.42/A1 of Abbarajupalem village in the name of Partnership Firm

Vishwak Constructions. Later, under LPS with AP CRDA, 1000 square yards plot was allotted jointly in his name and in the name of Accused No.1.

Subsequently, Accused No.1 with dishonest intention forged his signatures and thumb impressions illegally reconstituted Firm which was already subject matter of FIR No.274 of 2022 (CCS, Hyderabad) wherein charge sheet was filed and the matter is pending for trial. While so, again Accused Nos.1 and 2 by using forged documents misled AP CRDA authorities and got executed a rectification deed dated 19.06.2024 fraudulently deleting the name of defacto complainant and inserted the name of Accused No.2. Thereafter, they sold the said 1000 square yards plot vide sale deed dated 01.08.2024. Thereby misappropriated his 50% share. Thus, the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust by using forged documents as genuine.

6. In the bail petition, the Petitioner / Accused No.2 contends that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner contends that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature arising out of partnership and property 3 transactions. The complainant is attempting to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case to harass the petitioner. The alleged transaction pertains to the year 2016, whereas the complaint has been lodged only on 13.04.2026 after an unexplained delay of nearly 10 years, such an abnormal delay clearly indicates that the complaint is an afterthought and filed with malafide intention.

The petitioner contends that the very same subject matter is already under adjudication in FIR No.274 of 2022 (CCS, Hyderabad) in which a charge sheet has been filed and the case is pending trial. The petitioner has already taken appropriate legal steps, including filing a quash petition. Hence, registration of present FIR amounts to abuse of process of law. The petitioner further contends that the complainant case with Criminal Petition No.4044 of 2025 was referred to the Arbitration to a retired Judge of High court on 18.03.2026 and the proceedings are pending till now and that the same complainant filed another case vide Case No.COP 103 of 2022 before the Commercial Court of

Telangana State and the same is also pending till now. The petitioner contends that the complainant belongs to Hyderabad, Telangana State and the partnership firm was registered at Hyderabad, and that the retirement and amendment of new partnership deed is also executed at Hyderabad,

Telangana State only. Hence, the complaint made before the SHO, Thulluru

Police Station is without jurisdiction, and prays to grant anticipatory bail.

7.The learned defence counsel argued that in this matter, Accused No.1 was already arrested and released on bail. The present petitioner who was shown as Accused No.2 was a farmer and he is no way concerned with the alleged offence. Hence, prays to grant bail.

8.On perusal of the material on record, a case in Cr.No.100/2026 of of

Thulluru Police Station was registered for the offence under Sections 318 (4), 4 326 (2), 336 (2), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) r/w.3 (5) of BNS against Accused Nos.1 and 2. The specific overt acts against the present petitioner / Accused No.2 is that himself along with Accused No.1 by using forged documents, mislead AP

CRDA authorities and got executed a rectification deed dated 19.06.2024 by fraudulently deleting the name of defacto complainant Venugopal Vabbilisetty and thereby inserted the name of the petitioner / Accused No.2. Thereafter, both Accused Nos.1 and 2 sold 1000 square yards plot vide sale deed dated 01.08.2024. Thereby misappropriated 50% share of the defacto complainant.

On perusal of the record, investigation is still pending and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and also may avoid investigation and he will not co-operate with

Police for completion of investigation. Further, custodial interrogation is required to trace out the original forged documents and to identify modus operandi. The jurisdiction aspects as pointed out by the petitioner can be decided at this stage.

By considering the nature of alleged offences, and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11 th of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y.NAGA RAJA,

II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Copy to: 1.Judicial Magistrate of I Class – Cum – Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. 2.The Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District. Uploaded through: eCourts via Case Information System.