ZJ7/.,7 Z IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT A JJ MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ctRE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2109 OF 2025 Betwee n : 1. Smt. Buggana Gayathri, W/o Buggana Chandra Reddy, aged 50 yrs, R/o D.No.ll-90, Thasilpeta, Bethamcherla, Bethamcherla (M), Nandyal DistrI'Ct -518 599 ...Petitioner No.1/A-1 2. Smt. P.O.ViJ-aya Lakshmi, W/o P.O.Bhaskar Reddy, aged 39 years, R/o D.No.2-33, Bytapeta, Bethamcherla, Bethamcherla (M), Nandyal District-518 599 H . Petitioner No.2/A-2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature At Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under section 482 of BNSS, I-S filed Praying that in the circumstances stated I-n the grounds filed l'n support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticl'patory bail to the petitioners/ A-1,2, directing the Station House Offl'cer, Bethamcherla Police Station, to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in F.I.R. No.18 of 2025 on the file of Bethamcherla Police Station. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.V.Badra Naga Seshayya, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following APHCO10100762025 I/ lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH T\^/O THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2109/2025 Betwee n : Smt. Buggana Gayathri, and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) Others AND The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.A V BADRA NAGA SESHAYYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER:- The Criminal Petition, u/See.482 of B.N.S.S is filed on behalf of the petitioners/Al and A2 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with crime No.18/2025 of Bethamcherla Police Station, Nandyal District. r-----. r-----. 2 2) A case has be6'n registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable u/sees.316(3), 316(5) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. 3) Thecaseoftheprosecutl|on, in brief, isthat: on the instructions of `Joint Collector, Nandyal on 25.12.2024 from 16.00 hours to 21.30 hours, the District Civil Supplies Manager, APSCSCL, Nandyal along with Director on the Board of APSCSCL made surprise inspection of the APSWC (Investor Gowdown), H.Kottla Village, Bethamcherla Mandal and new srj Lakshmi Narasimha ware house (lnvestor Godown), H.Kottala VI'llage, Bethamcharla Mandal there was a shortage of 913 bags of rice (50 kgs each), i.e., 456.50 qujntals. Though a notice and a show cause notice were issued to the management of New Sri Lakshmi Narasimha warehouse (Investor Godowns), H.Kottala, they could not submit any satisfactory explanation. Basing on which, police regI-Stered a case in Crime No.18 of 2025 of Bethamcherla Police Station, NandyaI Dl'strict. 4) The learned counsel forthe petitioners/Al and A2 submits that, even according to the accusatI'OnS made by the Prosecution, the provI-SiOnS under Section 316 (3) of BNS wl-Il apply, but not section 316 (5) of BNS. The learned counsel for S`--. ~3 _ 3 the petitioners fairly contended that the provision under section 316 (3) of BNS is applicable to the facts of the case, as I't iS Punishable With imprisonment for less than Seven years. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of Amesh Kumar Vs. Sfafe of B,-hat anc' another'. After considering the submissions made and reviewing the material available on record, jt is evident that the Prosecution does not Claim that the property entrusted to the petl'tioners was not in thel'r capacity as publl'c servants. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Firm has filed W.P.No.3567 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a copy of the counter in w.p.No.3567 of 2025, wherein, in paragraph No.12, in reply to paragraph No.9, it is submitted that nowhere it is stated as misappropriation, but it is a shortage and a loss to the respondent corporation. 5) The petitioners primarily rely on the contentions in the counter, which state that there is no accusation of misappropriation as alleged in this case. Additionally, the Petitioners have brought tO the Court's attention a copy of the agreement between the parties. According to Clause 2.3, the i (2014) 8 SCC 273 cJ=A= ; \- ii!jiE 4 r/ food grain stocks sha" be under the joint custody of the godown owner and an officer to be posted by the DI-Strict Cjv" suppll'es Manager, APSCSCL, Nandyal. The petl-tjoners' counsel submits that, even jf there I'S a shortage as contended by the respondent, I't Can be explained as per the terms of the agreement. The joint custody of the petitioners and the officer to be posted by the Dl'strI'Ct Civ" suppll'es Manager js evl'dent in the wrl't petl'tjon, wh,'ch js pendl'ng and questlons varlous orders passed by the departments. However, prl'ma facje, this court finds that the alleged offence against the petl-tioners l|s punishable with imprl'Sonment for up to seven Petl'tjoners to antl-cI'PatOry bal'l. years, thereby entitling the 6) considerI'ng the submjssl'ons of the learned counsel for the petI'tI-Oners and havI'ng perused the material aval'lable on record, thl's court is of the vl'ew that the petitioners are women and there l's no possI'bjljty of theI-r fleeing away from the JurI'SdiCtl-On Of the Court. Therefore, this court js inclI'ned to grant antI'Cl-PatOry bal'l to the petl'tioners. 7) Accordingly, the petjtjoners/Al and A2 are dI'reCted to surrender before the station House officer concerned wl-thin two (2) weeks from today and on such surrender, the petI'tiOners €fff>. To, 5 sha" be released on baI®I on theI-r executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two suretl'es for a like sum each to the satl-sfaction of the arrestI'ng polI'Ce OfflcI'als and the petl'tioners shall cooperate for l'nvestl-gatl'on and they sha" appear before the investigatl-ng officer as and when thel-r presence is required. The Petitioners sha" not cause any threat,` inducement or prom]'se to the PrOSeCutl'on witnesses. 8) with the above djrectI'OnS, the Criml'nal petition I-S a"owed. ?_Dl- a-;:?:f:I-GAP¥_£l DL! /S 7lRAvR JJTRUECOPY,, Ass,a-7'ri; -\I s EcTI a Nff#F I c :'R 1 The statlon House officer, Bethamcher'a pollce statlon, Nandyal D,-strict. 2 one cc to sR' A V BADRA NAGA SESHAYYA, Advocate [opuc] 3. Two cos topuBLIC PROSECUTOR, Hl'gh court of AP, Amaravatl'. [ouTJ 4. One spare copy. PSD JT, I / HIGH COURT '_- l+i TMR,J DATED:24/03/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2109 of 2025 ALLOWED t2 9 MAR 2ft25 LH=