APHC010106362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2298 OF 2025 Between: Batchu Venu Bhaskar Reddy @ Chinna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of AP, Rep. by its PP ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BEHARA RAJSHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner herein/A2, seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.466 of 2024 of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 379, 506, 307 read with 34 2 IPC and Sections 43, 66, 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to 31.12.2019, the de facto complainant was subjected to harassment by the accused by confining him in a rented room. It is further alleged that the accused attempted to kill him and stole his two phones and removed data from his phones. 3. The matter was being adjourned from 05.03.2025 onwards on one pretext or the other. On 05.03.2025, at the request of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the matter was adjourned for a period of one week for getting instructions. Thereafter, on 27.03.2025 the matter was directed to be listed on 01.04.2025. On 01.04.2025, the matter was directed to be listed on 02.04.2025 under the caption ‘for orders’. On 02.04.2025, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, again the matter was directed to be listed after one week. On 09.04.2025, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Though the matter is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3 4. In view of the same, heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioner herein/A2 that in connivance with A1, he is alleged to have cheated the public and caused human trafficking and extortion. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that apart from the present case, three other cases were registered against the petitioner herein and investigation in the present crime is not yet completed. The petitioner herein, who is accused in Crime No.382 of 2024 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam district, filed an anticipatory bail application in Crl.P.No.2569 of 2025 and this Court, by an order dated 18.03.2025, dismissed the said application. A perusal of the said order goes to show that about 132 transactions were made between A1 and the petitioner herein. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the severity of the allegations and nature of the crime, this is not a fit case, where anticipatory bail can be granted. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein. 4 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Dated:10.04.2025 Nsr 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2298 of 2025 Dated:10.04.2025 Nsr