\\'. * lN THE HIGH COURT 9F ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARJ I.. .f`+ I. -*. S .,r.,i MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE ``:!1§ -,.<+ f/ . `+,I._ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .. p R ES E N T : _ '''{ife.ar`g"¥ . I I\|O|IV I : _-l[:;;EjE;;:;ic:fra1??£#, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5595 OF 2025 Between.I padarthI-Ramesh @ Ganesh chowdary, (A1), Son of Hanumaiah, aged 30 years, R/o 2nd Line, Krishna Nagar, Guntur Town, Guntur District. Petitioner/AI AND The State: Inspector of police, PattabhI-Puram PS Guntur urban Thorough its public Prosecutor, High Court ofA.P., Amaravathi Respondent pet[-lion under sectI-On 480 & 483 of BNSS., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed jn support of the criminalpetition, the High court may be pleased to release the petI-tI-Oner/Al on ba" in connection with crime No. 47 of 2016 of Pattabhipuram police Station, Guntur Urban District. The petjt[-on comI'ng On for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed I-n Support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of srI'. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA, Advocate for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent; The Court made the following ORDER: APHCO10273942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special original JurisdjctI[On) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJuNA RAO RIMINAL PETITION NO: 5595/2025 [3369] / Between : Padarthi Ramesh AII'aS Ganesh chowdary .HPETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Inspector Of Police ..IRESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal petition, u/see.480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/A1, seekI-ng bail, in . p.R.C.No.9/2018 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for prohibition and Excise, Guntur (Crime No.47/2016 of Pattabhipuram police Station). 2. The petitioner was impI,'cated as accused no.1 in the above said crime and the same was registered for the offences punishable under secs. 120-B, 364-A, 324, 342 lPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The case against the petj{ioner was abated on 18.4.2023 as the respondent- c----. t.i_ L-.® i \ 2 police filed death certific-ate of one Padarthi Ramesh Gandhi, S/o Ftamachandra Rao instead of P-adarfhi Ramesh, S/o Hanumaiah. On knowing the same, the respondent-police requested the Court to reopen the case against the petitioner. Then the case against the petitioner was reopened and issued non-bailable warrant against him {o secure his presence before the Court by setting aside the abatement order dated 18.4.2023, on 24.01.2025. On 24.O1.2025, the petitioner was arrested. Thereafter he moved an application for bail before the learned Ill Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur vide Crl.M.P.No.638/2025 in Cr.No.47/2016 of Pattabhipuram Police Station and the same was dismissed on o5.5.2025. Hence this application for bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the crime has been registered against the petitioner in the year 2016 and filed charge sheet and the detention of the petitioner is not required to conduct further investigation. The petitioner will co-operate with the Court for trial. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that no antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. 6. ln the-bail order of the learned Sessions Court vide Crl.M.P.No.638/2025, the petitioner contended that he -did not receive any summons from the court and he came to know that the case was disposed of against him. Despite raising such ,specific contention, learned Sessions ----a 3 Judge has not asserted the c-orrectness or otherwise of the said submission. This Court views that without receiving summons from the Court of Sessions, the petitioner was not supposed {o attend for adjournments before the Sessions Court. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge 'lndicates that a fake death certificate of the petitioner has come to the notice of the trial court. This Court views that such certificate is not expect;d to be filed by the person who claims to be dead and some other person might have produced before the Investigating Officer or before the Court. There is nothing on the record that indicates such certificate has been created or fabricated by the petitioner purposefully to avoid the trial. ln the said facts of the case, in the light of the observations made above, this Court is inclined to consider the application of the petitioner with the following conditions. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner/Al herein shall be released on his executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only),with two sureties for a like sum to the sat'lsfaction of the learned Special Judicial First class Magistrate for prohibition and Excise, Guntur; (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and hamper the investigation and shall cooperate for investig_ation. . Soy. /s rfi4R //TRUE COPY// \ 'l-I sEcTlall St=-- 4 sss€rcsurf/i:fyrvrv¥E:%E:Rf e-- To, 1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Court, Guntur. 2. The lll Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur. 4. The Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban District. 5. One CC to SrI-. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HI'gh Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. [OUT] 7. One spare copy JSS \`` _ HIGH COURT TMR, J DATED:16/06/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP,No.5595 of 2025 ALLOWED