-<~2.`. ~.``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA-VATl I THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT.I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA '`',. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.-5716 OF 2025 i Between: Smt Paladugu SrI' Harshavardhini @ Harsha Vardhini, W/o. Dr. Nokkavarapu Raja Ramesh, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Household Duties, R/o. Flat Not 106, Sun Moon Apartments, sree Ramachandra Nagar, Vinayaka Temple Road Vijayawada. ...Petitioner/Accused NoI4 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram police Station, Guntur, Through public prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh a{ Amaravati Guntur District. ...Respondent petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C/ Under Section 482 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 baI'I in the event of her arrest in connection with FIR No. 60 of 2025, Pattabhipuram police Station, Guntur District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the` memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI V V SATISH, Advocate for the petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the court made the following ORDER:- The present application is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner/accused No.4 in connection with the FIR No.60 of2025 on the file of the Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District for the offences punishable under sections 120(b), 409) 420] 506] 509 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The de-fac{o complainant is an authorized representative of a company namely M/s. Mahi Agrilmpex Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in the business of Real Estate had lodged a Police complaint, lodged a complainant on behalf o the Company alleging that the accused have approached the Managing Director of M/s. Mahi Agrilmpex Pv{. Ltd., to make investment in their company promisl-ng good returns. Got attracted to the false promises, Managing Director of M/s. Mahi Agrilmpex Pvt. Ltd., has transferred amounts to a tune of Rs.-ll,62,04,400/-to the Accused No.1. After receiving the money the accused have refused to execute any sort of agreement in favour of M/s. Mahi Agrilmpex Pvt. Ltd.,. Thus the subject FIR has been lodged. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject transaction is a commercial transaction between two companies and there was an agreement between the M/s. Mahi Agrilmpex Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi TownshI-P NRT Pvt. Ltd., to develop and form a residential layout in an extent of Ac.40.54 cents in Molaka!uru Village, Narasaraopeta, MandaI Palnadu District and the said layouts have been approved. And in that conhection, for any reason if the alleged project does not go further at the =iii=- \+ expected Pace, attributing criminality intention to the members of the company and lodging an FIR seeking arrest of the petitioner who has nothing to do with the affairs of the company and who is the mother of a toddler Its nothing but to compel the company, to whom the monies were alleged to have been advanced/Invested, to yield to theI-r demands. He further argues that the entire transaction between two bust-ness en[jtjes, be it a loan or an investment, is c[-vil, and no element of mens rea is involved in it. lt I-S further argues that the petitI-Oner would cooperate wI'th the investI-gatjOn I-n a" means accordI®ngly sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Perused the record. The allegation of the defacto complajnant, who is stated to be the authorized representa=-;,:five of M/s. Mahi AgrI' lmPeX Pvt. Ltd, is that M/s. MahI- Agri lmpex Pvt. Ltd has made investments in M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Township NRT Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged jn real estate business. It js not the case of the defacto comp[ainant that the petitioner was responsible for the affal'rs of the company either as a Director or member of the company, in which the alleged investments were made by M/s. Mahi Agri lmpex pvt. Ltd, at the relevant point of time. lt I-s not the case of the prosecution that if a ba" is granted she would flee away. Havl'ng regard to the nature of the accusations made against the petitioner, and it does not appear from the record that the petitioner would tamper with evidence and I-i does not appear that custodial in{errogatjon is required. 5. Therefore having regard to the contentions advanced, this court deems it appropriate to grant antI-CiPatOry bail on foIIowI'ng COnditiOnS: I. In the event of petitionerJs arrest, petitioner herein/accused No.4 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District. [l. The petitioner shall make herself available for I-nvestigation as and when required. Ill. The petitioner shall not cause any threat, I-nduCement Or Promise to the prosecution`witnesses. 6. With the above directions, the criminal Petition is allowed. sD/- M.sR/N/vAs ASSIStT A-:a,'+-I '''.uJ| ASS ISTidi'T-R //TRUE COPY// SEcT!oN F( / L#L-,oil Tol 1. The Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram police station, Guntur District 2. One CC to SRI V V SATISH, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT KM,J DATED: 12/06/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.NoI5716 of 2025 ALLOWED -#ir3 =ir *S=h ®quEL` a €l'f \ \ \\\ )-\\\ ¥+=of.;.s# I-i