IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAXt TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER,,®#^p®^-^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE '/^>A if?-. hi iPRESENT: ^ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9541 OF 2025 Between: 1. Neeha Khandelwal, W/o. Late Mahesh, aged about 69 years, Director, MNS Materials and Profits Pvt. Ltd., 1116, Azure the Oceanic, 40 South Bank Road, Maylapore, RA Puram, VTC Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai District, Tamil Nadu 2. Swathi Khandelwal, W/o. B. Ankit, aged about 45 years. Director, MNS Materials and Profits Pvt. Ltd., 2604, IREO GRAND ARCH, Sector-58, Badshahpur, Gurgaon, Haryana 3. Srishti Garg, D/o. Late Mahesh, aged about 35 years. Director, MNS Materials and Profits Pvt. Ltd., 1116, Azure the Oceanic, 40 South Bank Road, Maylapore, RA Puram, VTC Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai District, Tamil Nadu 4. Ram Ashok Khandelwal, S/o. Ashok, aged about 54 years. Managing Director, MNS Materials and Profits Pvt. Ltd., Block N0.3- Lakshmi Kirupa Apartments, Rajaji Road, Salem, Salem Hasthampati, Tamil Nadu Cl ...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Station House Officer, West Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to release the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.31/2025 of West Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s Sodum Anvesha, Advocate for the Petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following: CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that as a part of fulfilling contractual obligation by the Petitioners to AMRD Builders belonging to defacto complainant for supply of 95 Lorries of TMT HYSD Steel Bars, Angles and Channels, on 07.01.2025, on Lorry bearing No. TN 28 BF 1797 driven by Accused No.5 carrying the load of 43 Tonnes of Steel, unloaded the material at SVIMS Worksite and was going to the Weigh Bridge and after reaching Mango Market, accidentally, a Secret Chamber in the Lorry opeped and Gravel from the Chamber fell on the road near the Alipiri Check Post. This was observed by one Jyoti Kumar, an employee of defacto complainant, who questioned the Accused No.5 about the same and Accused No.5 fled away informed to the defacto from there leaving the lorry and when this was complainant, the lorry was brought to the worksite and searched, where it was found that there was a secret chamber behind the Driver’s seat in the lorry with dimensions of 1.8 mts x 0.55 mts x 2.20 mts which can hold up to 3.5 Tons of gravel designed with an intent to increase the weight of the load and reduce the Steel Weight which is being supplied, to cheat the defacto complainant by causing wrongful loss 95 such lorries amounting to Rs. 2,56,50,000/- and even after informing the Petitioners, there was no response from them for about two months. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their family and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence ancf there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention. and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail and prosecution further apprehend that the Petitioners, if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of ball? ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the Petitioners/ Accused 1 to 3 are the Directors of M/s MNS Material and Profits Private Limited, based in Salem, Tamilnadu. The Petitioner No.4/ Accused No.4 is the Managing Director of M/s MNS Materials and Profits Private Limited. There has been some transactions of purchase of TMT Steel by the defacto complainant from the Petitioners Company from 2019 onwards. The defacto complainant is a civil contractor, he purchased TMT Steel from the Petitioners Company. It appears that there are certain discrepancies with respect to the weight of the TMT Steel transported from the company of the Petitioners to the desired destinations of the defacto complainant at relevant places. So in total there is shortage of delivery of Steel from the Petitioners Company to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant claimed huge amounts from the year 2019 onwards from the company of the Petitioners. It appears that a pre mediation application was referred to the District Legal Services Authority for amicable settlement of the issue. Rs. 1,42,99,239/- has been claimed by the Petitioner Company from the defacto complainant. Whereas the defacto complainant claims that the Petitioners Company is bound to pay an amount of Rs. 2,56,50,000/-. The pre-mediation process that ensued in between the Petitioners and the defacto complainant was failed before the District Mediation Centre. 9. The Petitioner/ Accused No.1 is the mother of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/ Accused No.2 and 3; Petitioner No.4/ Accused No.4 is the nephew of Petitioner No.1. The Petitioners 1 to 3 are permanent residents of Myalore, Chennai District; Petitioner No.4 is the permanent resident of Rajaji Road Salem, Salem Hasthampati, Tamilnadu. They have got fixed abode. The i section of law that is alleged against the Petitioners is Section 318(4) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’, for which punishment of imprisonment is less than 7 years. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 4. CONCLUSION: 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: In the event of arrest of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4, they shall be enlarged on bail subject to their 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; The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. , I. IV. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT TRAR i SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// For, To, 1. The Station House Officer, West Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District One CO to M/s Sodum Anvesha, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy 2. 3. 4. HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED:23/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9541 of 2025 ^ ^ StP ? ALLOWED t_> -ar ★ '*r