APHC010366102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7599 OF 2025 Between: 1. B.Mahati, D/o. B.Bashapathi Reddy, Aged about 57 Years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 1/541-18, Raghavendra Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District. 2. Gangarapu Reddeppa Naidu, S/o. Chennakesavulu, Aged about 53 Years, Occ; Business, R/o. 12/13/14, Izzathnagar, NVK Tennis Academy. Kondapur, Serilingampally Mandal, K.V. Rangareddy District. 3. G. Mamatha, W/o. Gangarapu Reddeppa Naidu, Aged about 48 Years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. 12/13/14, Izzathnagar, NVK Tennis Academy, Kondapur, Serilingampally Mandal, K.V. Rangareddy District. ...Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 4 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh through Station House Officer, of Nandyala III Town P.S., Tirupathi District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...Respondent/Complainant 2. Etikela Venkata Sudheer Kumar Reddy, aged 31 years, S/o. Subash Chandra Bose Reddy, H.No.28-193, R/o. Housing Board Colony, Nandyal Town, Nandyal District. [Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court's order dated 18.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.7599 of 2025] ...Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and 482 of BNSS. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused on Anticipatory bail in the event of their Nos. 2 to 4 arrest in connection with Crime No.71 Nandyala District. of 2025 registered at Nandyala -III Town Police Station, Counsel for the Petitioners; Sri Varun Byreddy, Advocate Counsei for Respondent No.1; The Pubiic Prosecutor, Counsei for Respondent No.2; Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava High Court of A.P. Advocate The Court made the following order: APHC010366102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 05B zi™ [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7599/2025 Between: 1.B MAHATI, D/0. B. BASHAPATHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/0. 1/541-18, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2.GANGARAPU REDDEPPA NAIDU,, S/0. CHENNAKESAVULU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. 12/13/14, IZZATHNAGAR, NVK TENNIS ACADEMY MANDAL, K.V. RANGAREDDY DISTRICT. KONDAPUR, SERILINGAMPALLY 3.G. MAMATHA,, W/0. GANGARAPU REDDEPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. R/0.12/13/14, IZZATHNAGAR, NVK TENNIS ACADEMY, KONDAPUR, SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL, K.V. RANGAREDDY DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICE, OF NANDYALA III TOWN P.S., TIRUPATI DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.ETIKELA VENKATA SUDHEER KUMAR REDDY, AGED 31 YEARS, S/0. SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE REDDY, H.NO.28-193, R/O. HOUSING BOARD COLONY, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. COURT'S ORDER DATED 18.08.2025 IN 1.A.N0.1 OF 2025 IN RESPONDENT N0.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE CRL.P.N0.7599 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT/COIVlPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), for granting of pre arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.71 of 2025 of Nandyala III Town Police Station, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 herein for the offence punishable under Section 329(4), 115(2), and 308(7) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a report against the petitioners herein along with other accused stating that all the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant, harassed him by both physically and mentally and threatened him and also resorted extortion of huge amount. A-3 slapped the complainant and threatened to pay Rs.1.00 Crore to drop the case against him which was filed by A-1/wife of complainant, forcibly obtained his signatures on the empty promissory notes by putting him into fear of death and threatened with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, the petitioners herein are arraigned as accused. 2. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Varun 3. Byreddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. 4 Petitioner No.1 herein i 3 herein are the aunt and complainant. To take complainant lodged a false Kurnool District and K.V. adhere to any conditions that IS the mother of the Accused No. 1, Petitioner Nos.2 and uncle of Accused No.l, Accused No.1 is wife of the revenge against the family of Accused report. The petitioners No.1, the are permanent residents of Ranagereddy Districts and they undertake to strictly may be imposed by this Court. 4. It is further submitted Petitioners and that there is no recovery attributable to the custodial Interrogation is not warranted in the facts and Circumstances of the investigation and there is case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the tampering with IS prayed to grant pre-arrest bail to the no likelihood of him absconding or the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it i Petitioners herein in the interest of justice. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned submits that P.2/A-2 5. Senior Counsel for the petitioners further was not at all there at the time of alleged scene of 18.05.2025 to 25.05.2025. To buttress offence. He was out of station from that contention, he filed Flight boarding stayed at the relevant point of Senior Counsel contends, that offence at the time of alleged was concocted by the complainant and pass and also the receipt of Hotel where time. By filing all those documents petitioner No.2 he learned was not at all at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the entire story alleged is highly unbelievable and totally false. Nos. 1 and 5 6. It is further submitted that Accused States of America. A-5 is brother of A-1. The alleged offence in the mid night of 20.05.2025. By that time, A.3 are presently in United had taken place was not at all in the scene of offence. He was out of state. Though the plea of alibi in considering the grant of pre arrest bail, cannot be considered, it has got a bearing on the facts of the case while granting pre arrest bail, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts, it is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that Petitioners may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that LWs.5 and 6 the direct witnesses. They corroborated with the de facto complainant in material particulars. Only seven (7) witnesses have been examined, investigating Officer had served a notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS’, on the petitioners, but the petitioners without turning to the Investigating Officer with necessary information by cooperating with the investigation, they had issued a legal notice through their counsel. The petitioners without 7. 8. 9. are 6 approaching the learned Sessions Judge petition for grant of pre-arrest bail and Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned while reiterating the submits that the petitioners learned Sessions Judg made out any special or extra-ordinary circumstances for filing this directly before this Court and it is urged to dismiss the petition. POINT FOR CONSIDFRATIom- concerned directly filed this criminal it IS urged to dismiss the petition. 10. counsel appearing for 2 arguments of the learned Assistant Public have not approached at the first nd respondent Prosecutor instance, the e concerned for grant of pre-arrest bail. They have not application 11. In the light of the learned Counsel for both the sides case of the prosecution and the , now the point for consideration i contentions of the is: Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail? ANALYSIS: 12. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 5 indulged de facto complainant and threatened Nos.2 to 4 are that, they along with Accused trespassing into the house of the in him and also resorted extortion of huge husband of A-1. Petitioner No.1 herein is mother of A-1 amount. The de facto complainant iIS ■ She is working She is a Widow aged about 57 as Government doctor of Homeopathy Petitioner No.2/A-3 i years. IS uncle of A-1. Petitioner No.3/A-4 iIS younger sister of petitioner No.1/A-2. The marriage of A-1 and de facto A-1 and the de facto complainant was complainant are educated performed on 19.12.2021. -r - 7 ,/ people. The de facto complainant lodged a typed report running into three He levelled allegations against his wife, mother-in-law, uncle and aunt of A-1 and their relatives that they had all subjected him mental harassment pages. and indulged in lodging false reports, trespassed into his house and demanded huge amount and forcibly got executed by de facto complainant certain promissory notes. A-1 on earlier occasion lodged a report against the de facto complainant and his relatives for causing cruelty and harassment. It the file of the III Town Police Station, Adoni. was registered as a case on Accused No.1 left for USA on 04.09.2025. It is important to point out that the petitioners herein have not approached at the first instance for grant of pre arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge having jurisdiction to grant relief. Without approaching the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have approached this Court directly, this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction in considering the request for grant of pre arrest bail, but that jurisdiction has to be exercised only when there are special or extra-ordinary circumstances. The petitioners failed to establish special or extra-ordinary circumstances. 13. Of course The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala in 15. SLP (CrI.) Nos.6588 of 2025 at Para Nos.7 to 9, it is held as under: i f “7 The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrpC in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area- ..:cc distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. wise 8 8. m^mmm 16. Considering the facts and ci allegations leveled against the petitioners Its discretion to grant pre arrest bail circumstances of the case, the nature of the this Court is not inclined to as the petitioners had not made special or extra-ordinary circumstances of filing this petition directly before this Court without approaching learned Sessions exercise out any Judge concerned at the first instance. CONCLUSION: 17. In view of the discussions giving liberty to the petitioners to supra, this Criminal Petition is disposed of approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned for grant of pre-arrest bail. Only for a period of four (4) weeks coercive steps shall be taken no against the petitioners, enabling them to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned for grant of pre-arrest bail. Sd/-N NAGAMMA assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Station House Officer, District. 2. One CC to Sri Varun Byreddy, Advocate [OPUCl 4 - Two CC's°to Srivastava, Advocate [OPUC] Nandyala -III Town Police Station, Nandyala GPC o rcici V HIGH COURT DATED; 15/09/2025 \ ORDER CRLP NO. 7599 OF 2025 'i 2 4 SEP 2025 , Current Seciion m DISPOSING OF THIS CRIMINAL PETITION