lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ . -av =1.LIr i : pRES`-ENT|. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO '```+*.,*`&t:`£g§ ?.`ut,.__ Between : CRIMINAL PETm®`N'LNO: 5599 OF 2025 padarthi Ramesh @ Ganesh Chowdary, (A6) Son of Hanuma'lah, aged 30 years, R/o 2nd Line, Krishna Nagar, Guntur Town, Guntur District ... petitioner/A6 I.I A.ND The State-Inspector Of Police, I;att.abhiPuram PS Guntur Urban Thorough its publ-lc prosecutor, High Court of_A.P., Amaravathi ... Respondent petit'lon under section 480 i 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit ``fiJfed in support of the criminal Petit'lon`, I.he High Court may be pleased tO release the Petitioner/A6 on ba" in connection with crime No. 309 of 2015 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban 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 VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Advocate for the Petitioner, Assistant public prosecutor for the respondent-`and the court made the following. \ ORDER lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5599/2025 Between: Padarthi Ramesh Alias Ganesh Chowdary AND [3369] H.PETITIONER/ACCUSED The State Inspector Of Police ...RESPONDENT/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/A6, seeking bail, in p.R.C.No.113/2022 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for prohibition and Excise, Guntur (Crime No.309/2015 of Pa{tabhipuram Police Station). 2. The petitioner was implicated as accused no.6 'ln the above said crime and the same was registered for the offences punishable under sec.120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The case against the petitioner was abated on 18.4.2023 as the respondent-police filed death \E= \ 2 /I certificate of one padarthi Ramesh Gandhi, S/o Ramachandra Rao instead of padarthi Ramesh, S/o Hanuinaiah. 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 to secure his Presence before the Court by setting aside the abatement order dated 18.4.2023, on 24.01.2025. On 24.01.2025, the petitioner was arrested. , Thereafter he moved an application for bail before the learned l'l Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur vide crl.M.P.No.639/2025 in Cr.No.309/2015 of Pattabhipuram Police station and the same was dismissed on o5.5.2025. Hence this appliCat'lOn for bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant public prosecutor representing the respondenVS{ate. 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. In the -bail order of the learned Sessions Court Vide crl.M.P.No,639/2O25, 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 \I I + ,,,.`\ •t,i. . 3 Judge has not asserted th-e--correctness or otherwise of the said submission. This Court views that without .receiving summons from the Court of sessions, the petitioner was not supposed to attend for adjournments before the Sessions Court. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge indicates 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 expected 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 {o 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. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner/A6 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 satisfaction of the learned Special Jud'lcial 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 investigation. i .'1 //TRUE COPY// ....` + sD/- K.SRJNJVASA RAJu AS = I_STAN2#I^STttRA:i sEcTI6in -OFFICER G!; a+ J, To] 1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Proh'1bitiOn and Excise Court, Guntur. 2. The Superintendent, D'lstrict Jail, Guntur. 3. The SHO, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban D'lstrict. 4. One CC to SRl. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh.[OUT] 6. One spare copy ksr + I-, I, + HIGH COURT TMR, J DATED:16/06/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5599 of 2025 ALLOWED `_____