.i=------- lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIV[ARAVATl v_. WEDNESDAY I,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY -i,.,J`^li{-iri=.-±Tj TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREE CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 598 OF 2025 Betwee n : 1. Mungara Sobha Rani, W/o. Mungara Venkata Ramanaraju, aged about 47 Years, R/o. D.No.38/168-5-8-81, Chandravardhini Nagar, Near Pushpagiri School Road, old Chinnachow, Kadapa City, YSR (Kadapa) District 2. Mungara Sai Vishnu, S/o. Mungara Venkata Ramanaraju, aged about 24 Years, R/o. D.No.38/168-5-8-81, Chandravardhinl- Nagar, Near Pushpagiri School Road, Old Chinnachow, Kadapa City, YSR (Kadapa) District PetitI-OnerS/Accused 1 &2 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its public prosecutor, Through ll Town Police Station, Proddatur, YSR (Kadapa) District. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C.,) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal Petitl'on, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners in the event of their arrest in F.I.R. No.333 of 2024, dated 26.ll.2024 on the file of II Town Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS : SRI. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT .I PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER I+ 2 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short [the BNSS') has been filed on behalf of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.333 of 2024 of II Town Police Station, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 308 (5) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023(for brevity 'BNS'). 3. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, prior to 26.ll.2024, acoused Nos.1 to 6 developed acquaintance with de facfo complainant v,'z. Mule Venkata Ramana Reddy @ Rama Rao and lured with their words that if he invests money in rice pulling, he would get huge amounts; that believing the words of accused, he gave an amount of Rs.1,37,00,000/-to the accused on different occasions and later, failed as promised by them and when the de facfo complainant demanded them to return the said sum, accused were alleged to have put the de facfo complainant in fear, created terror in his mind and forcibly alleged to have taken an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-from him. The case was reported to <.-`-- 3 police and a case in Crime No.333 of 2024 of ll town Police station, proddatur, ysR Kadapa District was registered for the aforesaid offences and investigated into. 4. Lea-rned counsel for the Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 would submit that there Were financial disputes between the pet-ltioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the de faCfO COmPIainant and to settle the same, the de facfo complainant lodged a false complaint as against the pet®ltioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and other accused. Hence, prays tO grant Pre-arrest bail tO the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 5. Learned Assistant Publ-lc Prosecutor for State would submit that a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-was alleged tO have been Pa'ld by the de facfo complainant to the Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and further, a sum of Rs.56,00,000/- was alleged tO have been pa-ld by the c/e facfo compla®lnant through his bank account and the transact-Ions done by the de facfo complainant pn,'ma fac,'e prove the allegations aga-lnst the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, prays tO d'lSmiSS the Criminal Pet-ltion. 6. Heard both sides. PerusedthereCOrd. 7. A perusal of entire material On record goes tO Show that the aforesaid incident was said to have taken place 'ln the month of May, 2024, where the accused Were alleged tO have ciise3f-. S-13 _ /r 4 threatened the de facfo complainant on the pretext of eliminating him and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was extorted from the de facfo complainant. ln pursuant to that, the de facfo complainant filed a report before the JalahaIIj Police Station, Bangalore city of Karnataka State with regard to the disputes between the petl'tioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the de facfo complainant. Though the incident was alleged to have taken place in the month of May, 2024, the c/e facfo complainant did not refer any of the circumstances that took place in the report filed before Jalahalli Police Station, Bangalore City. At a belated stage, the present report was filed on 26.ll.2024 for the aforesaid offences. 8. There is any amount of ambiguity pr,-ma fac,'e whether the case is made out as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the de facfo complainant voluntarily parted with the amounts to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and other accused for conducting business and when the accused did not return the amount, the de facfo complainant has resorted in filing the present report as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. There is any amount of ambiguity with regard to accusation made against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, this Court is inclined e=2 i I-ij) cfsessfsa t •`| `| I,i J 5 to grant antI'CiPatOfy b.,ail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, on certain conditions. 9. Accordingly, in the event of the arrest of petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above crime, they shall be released on baI'I on their executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each wI'th two Sureties for the ll'ke sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. Further, the petitI'OnerS/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, concerned once in a week ,-.e. on every Saturday in between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. tI'Il filing of the charge sheet and further, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required and that the yshall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. 1O. Accordingly, the criminal Petition is allowed. sd/- N. ,NAdARj"A ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFF[Ct=-R Fol Tol 1. The Station House officer, lI Town Police Station, Proddatur, YSR (Kadapa) District. 2. One CC to SRl. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT] 4. One spare COPY /,/ ,I = - • I HIGH '`COURT SRK,J DATED : 05/02/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.598 of 2025 ALLOWED