.- zzz? IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5623 OF 2025 Between : Pendyala Sita Rama Anjaneyulu, lps, S/o. Subramanyam, aged about 58 years, R/o. H No. 6-5/2, Opp. Amdapuri Kasl'mbouli, Amdapur Gate, Amdapur, Rangareddy District, Te!angana -501504. u.Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Represented by the public prosecutor The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi Through Crime Investigation Department, Regional Office, -Vijayawada. ...Respondent Petition under sections 439 of Cr.P.C,/ Under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in Crime No.469 of 2024,I I dated 13.09.2024, pending on the file of lbrahimpatnam Police Station. lbrahimpatnam, NTR District in the interest of justice. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing thet arguments of SRI S NAGESH REDDY Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, forthe Respondent, the court made thefollowing I r ) THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO RIMINAL PETITIO ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity tthe B.NSS'), seeking tO enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Cr-No,469 of 202iof lbrahimpatnam police station, NTR Police CommiSSiOnerate, registered against the petit'IOner/Accused No.2 herein for the Offence Punishable under sections 193,195, 211, 218, 220, 354(D), 467, 420, 469, 471,166,166(A), 167, 342,120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for brevity lthe I.P.C.I) 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell iS thatthe Accused No.1 and the de-facto comp!ainant had developed a friendsh-lp during her modeling career in Mumbai and Hyderabad. The Accused No.1 prop.osed marriage tO her and even provided his horoscope for compat'[bi[ity. The Accused No.1 further informed her that he had filed a divorce petition for the dissolution of his marriage. ln 2015, the de-faCtO COmPlainant in Cr.No.469/2024 rejected the marriage proposal by Accused No.1, citing his involvement in extramarital affairs with other women. As a result Of her rejection, Accused No.1 held a grudge against her. Furthermore, in the inVeStigat-Ion, it Was found that he began to outrage her modesty by sending her nude pictures through his mobile phone and threatened to publish the said images on social media to Q` Q` `.-.. ` Dr-YLR,J Crl.P.No.5623 of 2025 coerce her .further. Accused No.1 is a state leader of the YSRCP party in Andhra Pradesh. After the de-facto complainant rejected his inarriage proposal, Accused No.1 harbored ill will against her and used his influence over State Police officials and the Police Commissionerate ViJ-ayaWada. 2.1. Accused No.1 hatched a criminal conspiracy to file a report with false recital's and falsely implicated the de-facto complainant. To falsely implicate the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.90/2024 of lbrahimpa{nam Po]{'ce Station a false narrative is created by the Accused No.1 by entering into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused in Cr.No.469/2024, alleging that the de- facto complainant offered to sell the property of Accused No.1 to third parties by showing a document (agreement of sale) containing the names of de-facto complainant as a vendor and showing the name of Accused No.1 as an original owner who entered into a GPA with the de-facto complainant using the said document, the de-facto complainant'allegedly received Rs.5 Iakhs as advance and based on the said fabricated document and the false narrative, a crime is registered vide Cr.No,90/2024 of lbrahimpatnam Police Station for the sole purpose of harassing and implicating the de-facto complainant in a false case. The Accused No.1 in collusion with other officials in Cr.No.469/2024 of - lbrahimpatnam Police Station falsely booked a case again.st the de-facto complainant without any involvement or knowledge of the de-facto complainant about the said agreement of sale. The Accused No.1 and other police personnel, acting under the influence of Accusec! No.1, pretended to i= ts i.I i + i+++i+ +i TT+ TT+++++TL+ir++i+`r±ti+i -------- .S' 3 Dr.YLRIJ Crl.P.No.5623 of 2O25 have investigated cr.No.90/2024 and on the said premise, arrested the de- facto complainant and her family members (mother and father) on o3.02.2024 at 03.03 p.m., l'n Mumbai. 2.2. During the arrest, the police planted a disputed sale deed I-n her handbag and fabrI'Cated a story as if the said document l'.e., the agreem'ent of sale was seized from her possession. As per the complainant in cr.No.90/2024, the de-fac{o complaI-nant had extorted an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) from Accused No.1 on the pretext that she would file false complal'nts against hI-m Of rape and leak the int]'ma{e pictures of them jn soc[-al circles. A compla,-nt was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein jn cr.No.469/2024. The petit,-oner/Accused No.2 herel'n was the head of the [DI'reCtPr General of Police (Intelll'gence)I for the state of Andhra pradesh and was classifI'ed as a pro{ectee of the {fx" category and he was placed under suspension by vI-rtue of registration of present crime. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 was arrested on 22.04.2025 and was produced before the learned Magistrate on 23.04.2025 and was remanded to District Jail, Vijayawada by the learned Mag[-strafe vide order dated 23.04.2025. 3. sri s.Nagesh Reddy, the learned counsel forthe petI'tiOner Submits that the petitl|oner is one of the senior most I.p.s officers jn the cadre of Director General and he has not comm,-{ted any offence; pe{!-tl'oner was fa[se]y implicated by the po]jce jn the crime; petjtjoner I-S the sole breadw['nner of his / ` G# DrYLR,J ® crl.p.No.5623 of 2025 family; petitioner would abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court-, and urged to allow the petition. 4. Per confra, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed for granting of bail argu'lng that the Petitioner iS influencing and threatening the witnesses by drawing the attention of this court on certain documents of the cD filed; the illegal role Played by the Accused/Petitioner is well established in the investigation; the Petitioner being responsible senior I.P.S officer ought not to have indulged in implication Of innocent lady as perpetrator jn commission of offences at the behest of Accused No.1 by unnecessarily threatening and influencing the Sub-Ordinate police officials of the Petitioner; even after Suspension and in the POliCe custody the petitioner has been influencing and threatening the witnesses and _ __- the investigation officer; attention of this Court was drawn to certain adverse statements recorded in the department enquiry initiated against the petitioner; threatening of the investigating officer by the petitioner; some more material witnesses have to be examined further; investigation is not yet completed; 'lf the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the |lnvestigation and would escape from the clLItCheS Of law; he would threaten the investigation officer and threaten the witnesses and urged to dismiss the bail petition, 5. As seen from the record, the Petitioner has been in the judicial Custody since 23.04.2025. The petitioner is resident Of Rangareddy District of the State ``t- t- •3 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5623 of 2025 of Telangana. The petitioner is one of the senior I.P.S officers in the cadre of the Director General and he was the head of the fDirector General of Police (Intelligence)I for the State of Andhra Pradesh and was classified as a PrOteCtee Of the l{X" category. The Petitioner is already placed under suspension. 6l lt is not out of place to mention here that, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.6640, 6702, 6734, 6802 and 6934 of 2024 enlarged the other accused in the crime, who are some police officers including the cadres of Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Inspectors and one legal practitio-ner, on pre-arrest bail with certain conditions, while referring that a case is a false one foisted implica{l'ng 'lnnocent person as accused, has to be determined by a competent court 'having jurisdiction and section 195 of [the Cr.P.C.,I is a bar 'for initiating a compliant and prosecute the ,police officials. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.4395, 3649, 3898 and 3933 of 2025 while pr,-ma fao,-e, considering the scope of Section 195 of fthe Cr.P.C.,I granted stay of all further proceedings in the investigation of the instant crime insofar as the petitioners therein concerned. 7. In this case the petitioner had already undergone police custody. Nearly more than 50 witnesses have been examined by the investigating officer. lf the petitioner is enlarged on bail with stringent cond'ltions, he would not flee away from the clutches of the law inas'much as he is already placed under suspension, and interest of tee justice would be served. E= ` .. ...._ Dr-YLR,J Crl.P.No.5623 of 2025 8. Keeping in view of the period of detention undergone by the petitioner I'n judicial custody for more than 36 days, operation of sect]'on 195 of £the Cr.P.C.,I the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, Progress Of investigation in the case and the fact that the petitioner had already completed his custody with police and his alleged role in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner ori bail with the following stringent condit'ions. 9. ln the result, the criminal r`etition is allowed with the following conditions: i. The petitioner/A2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned lll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. ii. The petitioner/A2 shall appear' before the Investigating Officer, CID, on every second saturday of every month between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of charge sheet. iii. The petitioner/A2 shall not leave the country without prior permission from the learned Ill Additional Chief Judicial Magistra-te Court, Vijayawada. : ttb eis afflrm±:i±±L_______ 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5623 of 2025 iv. The petitioner/A2 shall surrender his passport, if any, with the learned Ill Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. v. The petitioner/A2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any similar alleged offence in future. vi. The petitioner/A2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when reqLlired. vii. The petitioner/A2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted w,ith the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. viii. The petitioner shall not make any comment(s) either dI-reCtly or indirectly about the merits and demerits of the instant case before anyone, including print and electronic media, otherwise than due process of law. -_-`-.-------_ SDI- I ASSJSTA -_-__--- ForJ--___ //TRUE COPY// SEcTlori -'La`tei= ' -.as To, 1 The Ill AddFtIOnal Djstr!ct & sessIOnS Judge, vlJayawada, KrI'Shna DjstrI|Ct 2 The Ill AddltlonaI Chlef Judl'claI Maglstrate court, v,Jayawada, Krlshna Dlostrjct 3. The superintendent, DI-StrI'Ct JaH Vl-jayawada, NTR District 4 The slat,Ion House offl'cer, Ibrahl'mpatnam police station, NTR DIStrlct 5. The statl'on House officer, crime lnvestlgatI'On Department, Reglonal office, Vijayawada, NTR Dl'strI-Ct 6 One cc to SRI S NAGESH REDDYAdvocate [opuc] 7, Two cos to puBL[C PROSECUTOR, Hlgh court of Andhra pradesh [OUT] 8. One spare copy I" PSR ? _I__----`'-I-=.---.---~`r \ HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED :29/05/2025 BAIL ORDER f CRLP.No.5623 of 2025 ALLOWED