Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15776 (AP)

Veeraiah Neenavath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/680/2026 · 2026-02-10

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010044642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 680/2026 Between: VEERAIAH NEENAVATH, S/O BALAIAH, AGED 39 YRS, OCCLECTURER, D. NO. 12-55/2RAMANUJAKOTAM STREET JAGGAYYAPET, NEAR SIVALAYAM KRISHNA DISTRICT 521175 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE , CID. REGIONAL OFFICE, GUNTUR REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. 2. DHARAVATH SINDHU, W/O RAVI, AGED 29 YRS, BUDAWADA VILLAGE , JAGGAIAHPETMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 521175 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner / Accused No.3, in connection with Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of C.I.D Police Station, Mangalagiri, which is registered for the offences under Sections 109, 308(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Sections 67, 67(B) of 2 Information Technology Act and Section 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the present crime is a politically motivated one. It is further submitted that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commissions of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the FIR does not disclose any specific overt acts against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner along with Accused Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein is the person who is behind Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the commission of the alleged offences. The accusations made against the Petitioner are serious and heinous in nature. Investigation is at nascent stage and if the Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, at this stage, there is every possibility of hampering the investigation and tampering with the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. In the case on hand, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are not trivial in nature. The 3 offences alleged are heinous and serious, having a direct impact not only upon the individual complainant but also upon the larger societal interest. The materials placed before this Court at this stage prima facie indicate the involvement of the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. This Court is conscious of the fact that, at the stage of considering anticipatory bail, a detailed appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible. However, the seriousness of the accusations and the manner in which the alleged offences have been committed cannot be ignored. 6. In view of the nature and gravity of the accusations, the prima facie material available on record, and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the Petitioner. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:11.02.2026 Dinesh 4 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.680 of 2026 DATE:11.02.2026 Dinesh