.I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl MONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8914 OF 2025 Between: Anagani Ravi, S/o. Kameshwarao, Aged about 63 years, Occ President, MPP, Gannavaram R/o. AIIapuram vl-Ilage, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District. PetitI-Oner/Accused-2 AND The State Of Andhra pradesh, station House Officer, Gannavaram police station, Krishna District, Rep.by its publI'C Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh, at AmaravatI-. Respondent/complainant petition under section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C.,) prayI-ng that in the circumstances stated in the affjdavlt filed ln support of the crlmI'nal PetitIOn, the H,-gh Court may be pleased to grant Antl-cipatory Ba" to the petitioner/accused no. 2 and enlarge him l'n the event of hl-s arrest or surrender in F.I.R. No. 75 of 2025 of Gannavaram police station, Krjshna District couNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .-SRI. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER ```\ ``\ ``.``~.~ APHCO10448102025 E'EH lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL P N NO: 8914/2025 [3521] Betwee n : ANAGANI RAVl, S/O. KAMESHWARAO, AGED-ABOUT 63 YEARS, occ PRESIDENT, MPP, GANNAVARAM R/O. ALLAPURAM VILLAGE, GANNA'VARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, Rep.by its Public prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLA[NANl- counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI counsel for the Respohdent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court macle the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSS') by the petitioner/Accused N6.2 for granting of Pre-arrest bail in COnneCtiOn With Crime No.75 of 2025 of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 384, 420, 406, 379,12(B) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for brevity [the I.p.c.,I) and section 4 read with 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulat-Ion) Act, i957 (for brevity [the MMDR Act'), fua~nd •**-_, sect'lon 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity {the .PDPP Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The prosecution's case, as detailed in the report dated 25.02.2025, is summarized as follows: (i) one Jasthi Murali Krishna, the de-facto complainan{, is a resident of Marlapalem, a hamlet of Gannavaram village in Krishna district. He resides and works in the Panakal Cheruvu Ayacut area of his village. Panakal Cheruvu, located in R.S. No. 86, spans approximately 18 acres. For the past 30 to 40 years, around 15 villagers, including the coinplainant, have. been cultivating portions of this land, and they hold B-form pattas for the same. ln 2023, the then MLA of Gannavaram, Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan, the petitioner herein, visited the village and allegedly demanded, aggress'ively, that the farmers vacate the land they were cultivating. When the farmers resisted, asserting their I_ongs-landing rights over the land, he reportedly responded with threats and intimidation. lt is alleged that he tolc! them, "I know how to remove the blockage", thereby instiIII|ng fear of physical harm among the farmers. The complaI'nant contends that the MLA forcibly evI-Cted him and others without due process. Subsequently, the then MLA publicly claimed falsely, accordI'ng tO the COmPlainant, that he was undertaking the development of the panakal Lake for publI'C benefI-I. (ii) One day, the petitioner herein suddenly asked all the farmers to come to the lake and stated, "Now, I have blocked the village, if you do not do it, the village will turn against you''. He blackmailed all the MLAs and kept the fariners of panakala Lake in fear. The then MLA, Vamsi and his followers, namely Ravi, Seshu, Ranga and Mechineni Babu, formed an illegal association with the farmers and took possession of the land and developed the lake for the people, misleading everyone with false words and removing the soI'l from the Panakala Lake in May 2023, For about 40 days, day and night, 10 excavators were used to dig .illegally and illegally, to a depth of about 12 to 15 feet, and Vamsi, namely Ravi, Seshu, Ranga, and Mechineni Babu, sold it for their 3 gain. While this was happening, the farmers were thinking about what to do or how to expose this injustice through the media when vamsI- asked the farmers to come to hI'S Office. lf the farmers called, he would go with them when their relative KambhampatI' Krishna Kishore (Bobby) also went to Vamsi's office, there Ranga, Seshu, Ravi, and Mechinani Babu, who had put on a crazy show and had not given up hope for that land, threatened Vamsi that this land would be sold to him out of fear for their lives. Then why would they risk their lives for something that is not there?-After the pond excavation is completed, they will buy land equivalent to his land somewhere, and Vamsi told them to keep quiet with false words and alcohol. There was nothing else to do, so they all left from there. After Vamsi and his men had dug up the entire pond, the farmers went to vamsi again and asked about the land. When Vamsi threw them out of the office, he threatened them with death and said, "I will see to it that you are in the right place". I{ is known that government officials were involved in the fact that the MLA Vamsi had dug up the soil in the vicinity of the pond without getting permission from the government and used it for his benefit under the guise of pond clevelopment. At that time, no one cared when they complained to the police. Therefore, under the pretext of pond development, he frightened the farmers and forcibly vacated their land, and instead of giving their own land, he deceived them as part of a scheme and as part of a conspiracy, dug up the pond soil worth crores and sold it for their benefit. QLONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER_;_ 3. Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not --__ ~ committed any offence as al[egecL The Petitioner is the sole earnimg member / 5 / of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The PetitI-Oner iS Willing to abide by any condition that this court may deem fl-I and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodl-al interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the l'nvestigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the Prosecution evidence. Therefore, it I'S Prayed that this Court may be pleased {o grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the interest of justice. 4Be±±LMENTSQE THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTO__r+ 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigatI-On iS at a nascent Stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investI'gatI-On and may evade the process of law. 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. ln view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the I-nvestigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed[ i_ I---_I 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consI'deratiOn iS: lLWhether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arre-st bail?" ANALYSIS: 9. The alleged offence was taken placein theyear2023, but the FIRwas lodged in the 2025 vide FIR No.75 of 2025 of Gannavaram Police Station. Thus, tr}§.re is nearly two years delay in lodging FIR. Petitioner is aged about 63 years. He was arraigned as Accused No.2. He has got political roots. He contends that due to political vendetta, a false case was foisted against hin]_ by the Police at the behest of local political leaders. He is permanent resident of ---`' AIIapuram Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District. 10. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.3909 of 2025 at paragraph No.31 has observed as under: "31. The record reflects that the petitioner has a permanent residence. Given the nature of the dispute between the parties, there is no reasonable apprehension that they would influence or intimidate witnesses. The ex-MLA petitioner has strong societal roots, making it highly unlikely that he would attempt fo flee from justice. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioner like the accusations. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The likelihood of levying accusations 15 of harm or embarrassment ®through potential arrest is not improbable. The delay in considering the report plays a significant role in evaluating the petitioner's request. All the offences are punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, except 386 of lPC. Furthermore, this court finds reason to doubt the applicability of Section 386 of the ,lPC; instead, Section 384 IPC, which was invoked initially and carries a lesser punishment of up to three years, maybe mire appropriately applicable. AI least the petitioner has made a case for issuance of notice under section 35(3) of BNSS (section 41A of IPC)." 7 ll. Thus, in CrI.P.No.3909 of 2025, the learned Single Judge of this Court ---- u_ directed the lnvestigatI-ng Officer to strictly follow 35(3) of £the BNSS'. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the PetI-tiOner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2. CONCLUSION: 13. In the result, the criml'nal petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the StatI'On House Officer concerneci once in a week i.e., on every saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission fi-om the Station House Officer concerned. t 8 vl The petl{loner/Accused No 2 shall s-urrender hls passport, If any, to the investigatI'ng officer. lf he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affI-davit to that effect to the Investigating officer. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N.NAGAMMA A S sS :ScTT::k5oEF: II : TER:A R To, 1. The Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District, 2. One CC to SRl. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT] 4[ One spare copy \ ' \ I HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED :08/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8914 of 2025 ALLOWED =.prJ '£* i rf \ 9 EtP \\\\ EEE5±EE±EEEEEi