IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .-PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MAN CRIMINAL PETl"ON NO: 5102 OF 2025 Between : Venna Vijaya Chakravathi, s/o venna satyanarayana, aged about 59 years, Occ- Business, r/o H.No. 19-1-76, KavadI' Veedhi, Peddapuram Mandalam Kakinada Distric ...Petitioner/Accused No.ng ARID The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O. Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada District rep. by Public Pros[ecutor, High Court, Amaravati. ..I Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS is filed, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with F:I.R. No. 144 of 2025 of Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and' upon hearing the arguments of SRI T ARUNACHALAM Advocate for the Peti,tioner, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER The Court made the following Order: The present Criminal Petition is filed u grant of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest connection with the Crime No.144 of 2025 der Section 482 of B.N.S.S for f the petitioner/accused No.1 in on the file of the Peddapuram police Station, Kakinada District for the offjnces punishable under Section I ) 109(1)) 3(5)ofBNS. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioner stalting that there is a civil dispute :n:a::1.a::a: =d).5 naveni. lt is stated that on 26- between the Complainat and one Talloju 04-2025 at 01.00 hrs, when the defacto harvesting the paddy, the petitioner along trespassed into the land and obstructed the d the crop and attacked the de-facto compI complainat has sustained injuries. Thus the s petitioner and other arraying the petitioner as 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner practicing advocate. Against the defacto Co filed civil suit in O.S.No.5 of 2021 for decl possession. The suit was decreed on 31 Execution Petition in E.P.No. 5 of 2025 at was in his fields and was th other accused had illegally facto complainant in harvesting nant, in the result the defacto bject FIR is lodged against the ccused A-1. argues that the petI-tiOner iS a plainat one Talloju Krishnaveni ration of title and delivery of -07-2024] in complaint for delivery of possession. In the sai QaS connection with the same pe±i±ie±aer endorse connection with {hesaen®L filed against the de-facfo E.P. warrant was executed. ln nt was made in favour of the petitioner to execute the warrant with the help of the Court Ameen and Mandal Surveyor. [n the said process,, the pe{i{ioner along wj{h the plain{jff went to the subject property and handed over the warrant to the defacto complainat. lt is alleged that the de-facfo complainant took the warrant and tore the same and in the process a galata took place between the petitioner. Thus, complainant is stated to have bore a grudge against the petitioner and lodged the present esy*ue* ± complainant with false allegations. The learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged incident and he was only discharging the duties assigned to him in execution of warrant, further would submit that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation in all respects. 4. Having regard to the contentions, since the petitioner who is stated to be a practicing advocate in the capacity of an advocate while executing the warrant had entered the subject land. The alleged incident appears to have taken place while the petitioner was discharging his duties as an advocate. ln such case, if any, displeasures occurs against a person who is discharging the duties of an advocate, attributing criminal overt acts on the part of the counsel to the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant is matter for enquiry. However, since it is not the case of prosecution that the petitioner would flee away from the jurisdiction of the court if bail is granted, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following conditions: i. ln the event of the petitioner's arrest, petitioner herein/Accused No.1 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a Sum Of LllllL__ I-ii. IV. Rs.20,000/- (Rupees tiventy thousand only), with two suretl'es for the like sum to the satI'SfaCtiOn Of the Station House Officer, Peddapuram Poll-ce Station, Kakinada District The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required. The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall appear before the station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 P.m., till filing of the charge sheet. Needless to observe that the observations herein above are made only for SD/-M.SR[NIVAS ASSISTAN lSTFtAR I lTFe:REF= COPY I I ToI 1, The S.H.O. Peddapuram Police'Station, Kakinada District. 2. One CC to SRI. T ARUNACHALAM Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh.[OUT] 4. One spare copy KSR OFFICER __ . I-LT\ f `= HIGH COURT KM,J DATED : 12/06/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5102 of 2025 ALLOWED #dE =J cS-ady`