IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 9790 OF 2025 AND 9627 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9790 OF 2025: APHC010493462025 Between: 1. Vijay Kumar @ Mankamuthaka Vijay Kumar, S/o M. Narayana, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o 4-10, Peddammagudi Streert, Kothacheruvu Village, Sathya Sai District. 2. Janakampali Phani Sekhar @ Panishekar, S/o Venkatesh, Aged about 30 years, Occ; Business, R/o 5-140, Masthanappa Street, Kothacheruvu Village, Sathya Sai District. 3. Avula Ashok Kumar, S/o Avula Ramu, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o 2/76-5, Basavanna Street, Kothacheruvu Village, Sathya Sai District. ...Petitioners/Accused No.5, 8 & 12 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Thummalasettygari Suseela, W/o Suryanararyana Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Not Known to the Petitioner, R/o 17-1-205, Venugopal Nagar, Ananthapuramu. ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant A' Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash/set aside the order Vide CrI.M.P. No. 287 of 2025, dated 25.08.2025, in Crime No. 42 of 2025, on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur, lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order Vide CrI.M.P. No. 287 of 2025, dated 25.08.2025, in Crime No. 42 of 2025, on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, « , r Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2: - CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9627 OF 2025 APHC010485672025 Between: 1. Velluru Anjaneyulu, S/o Late Ramaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ; Business, R/o 2-384, Sai Baba Temple Street, Kothacheruvu Mandal, Sathya Sai District. 2. Valipi Peddanna, S/o Late Peddanna, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o 4-14, Peddamma Gudi Sai District. 3. Bandlapalli Adinarayana, S/o Late Narasimhulu, Aged about 49 Occ; Business, R/o 1-490, Kothacheruvu Village, Sathya Sai District. Kothacheruvu Village, Sathya years 4. B. Mahesh, S/o Late B. Nagappa, Aged 28 years, Occ; Business, R/o 3- 621, Peddamma Gudi, Kothacheruvu Village, Sathya Sai District. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos. 21, 23, 25, 28 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Thumrrialasettygari Suseela, W/o Suryanararyana Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Not Known to the Petitioner, R/o 17-1-205, Venugopal Nagar, Ananthapuramu. ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order Vide CrI.M.P. No. 285 of 2025, dated 25.08.2025, in Crime No. 42 of 2025, on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order Vide CrI.M.P. No. 285 of 2025, dated 25.08.2025, in Crime No. 42 of 2025, on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2: - The Court made the following Order; 7 /,y 1 APHC010493462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 9790 & 9627/2025 Criminal Petition No.9790 of 2025: Between: 1.VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS MANKAMUTHAKA VIJAY KUMAR, S/0 M. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/0 4-10, PEDDAMMAGUDI STREERT, KOTHACHERUVU VILLAGE, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 2.JANAKAMPALI PHANI SEKHAR ALIAS PANISHEKAR, S/0 VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/0 5-140, MASTHANAPPA STREET, KOTHACHERUVU VILLAGE, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 3.AVULA ASHOK KUMAR, S/0 AVULA RAMU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O 2/76-5, BASAVANNA STREET, KOTHACHERUVU VILLAGE SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THUMMALASETTYGARI SUSEELA, W/0 S U RYANARARYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O 17-1-205, VENUGOPAL NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition No.9627 of 2025: Between: 1.VELLURU ANJANEYULU, S/0 LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS R/O 2-384, SAI BABA TEMPLE STREET, KOTHACHERUVU MANUAL SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 2.VALIPI PEDDANNA, S/0 LATE PEDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, KOTHACHERUVU VILLAGE SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 3.BANDLAPALLI ADINARAYANA,, S/O LATE NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS R/O 1-490, KOTHACHERUVU VILLAGE SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. R/O 4-14, PEDDAMMA GUDI, NAGAPPA aged 28 YEARS OCr PEDDAMMA GUDI KOTHACHEmfvii VILLAGE SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. ’ HACHERUVU ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND ’ ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS Pi IRI ir PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2.THUMRRIALASETTYGARI SUSEELA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PETITIONER ANANTHAPURAMU. , W/0 SURYANARARYANA OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE VENUGOPAL R/0 17-1-205, NAGAR, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following; COMMON ORDER The instant Criminal Petitions under Section 528 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed, by the Petitioners of Bharatiya Nagarik /Accused Nos.5, 8 & 22 and Petitioners / Accused Nos.21, 23, 25 & 28, seeking to quash the orders in Crl.M.P,Nos.287 & 285 of 2025 dated 25.08.2025 respectively in on the file of the Court of II Additional District Crime No.42 of 2025 and Sessions Judge, Hindupur. 2. Heard Sri S.Rama Lakshmana Reddy, lea/ned Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant representing the State/Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit counsel for the Public Prosecutor that the Petitioners were granted regular bail by the learned trial Judge in Crime No.42 of 2025 of Kothacheruvu Police Station, by imposing some conditions and one of the said conditions is, to appear before the Station House Officer Kothacheruvu /-■ on every 1®‘ and 3'"'^ Saturday of every month between 9.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is Learned counsel would further submit that, the Prosecution has come with petitions seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Petitioners herein on the ground that the Petitioners failed to appear before the Police in compliance of the condition imposed against them. On that, learned trial Judge vide impugned orders, cancelled the bail which was granted to the Petitioners. It is further submitted that, though the Petitioners approached the Police, sometimes, they were not allowing the Petitioners to sign in the register and the presence of the Petitioners before the Police Station is evidence from the CC camera footage. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of the Court that the Petitioners herein failed to appear before the Police in compliance of the conditions imposed against them and that is why the Prosecution approached the Court for cancellation of their bail. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, it is not a case where the Petitioners are seeking bail before this Court. The Petitioners herein were already granted regular bail by the learned trial Judge. According to the Petitioners, because of some situations, their presence was not recorded by the Police. On the other hand, the Police would say that the Petitioners did not appear, which is the controversy in these matters. The learned trial judge cancelled the bail granted to the / / earlier. up 4. 5. Petitioners taking imposed of the Court. s. a view that the Petitioners disobeyed the conditions 6. In that view, sisince it is touching the life and liberty of the meet the ends of justice, the Criminal Petitions Petitioners, to are allowed setting aside the orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.287 & 285 of 2025 2025 on the file of the Court Hindupur. Petitioners herein Magistrate Court dated 25.08.2025 in Crime No.42 of of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, appear before the concerned are directed to on every Monday by 10.30 -till filing of the charge sheet imposed by the learned trial Judge while a.m Rest of the conditions i granting regular bail remain same. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II AdditionarDistfict and Sessions District. ^^One Ce Judge, Hindupur, Ananthapuram to Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to thd Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies GPC VNA HIGH COURT DATED; 26/09/2025 COMMON ORDER: CRLP Nos. 9790 OF 2025 & 9627 OF 2025 \ H OCT 2(B5 5 ^' Currant baciion ALLOWING THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS