APHC010062852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 983/2026 Between: PETA SREEKANTH, S/O. P. GOVINDU,AGED 35 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 2/150-3-1,MARUTHI NAGAR, KADAPA,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. SATTI BHASKAR, , S/O. LATE S. NARASIMHULU, AGED 53 YEARS,R/O.D.NO.1/697, RS ROAD, NEAR THE PF OFFICE, YERRAMUKKAPALLI, KADAPA CITY, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. THOKA DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV 2. 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.4, in connection with Crime No.15 of 2026 on the file of I Town U/G Police Station, Kadapa which is registered for the offences under Sections 333, 324(4), 308(2), 351(2)(3) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. 2 2. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri Thoka Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is Accused No.4 in the present crime. Learned counsel would further submit that a suit in O.S.No.660 of 2010 has been filed by the original owners of the subject property, who are the relatives of the Petitioner, against the De facto complainant and the same was decreed. The appeal against the said decree preferred by the De facto complainant in A.S.No.15 of 2015 was also dismissed on 27.04.2023. Learned counsel would further submit that the photo which is filed by the De facto complainant showing the presence of the Petitioner herein at the time of the alleged incident, is not correct. It is further submitted that no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. Hence, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 in one voice would submit that the Accused have demolished the property. It is further submitted that the presence of the Petitioner at the time of the incident is there in the photo. It is argued that there are other criminal cases pending against the Petitioner. There are no grounds to the grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory 3 bail to the Petitioner at this stage. In view of the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner and the presence of the Petitioner at the relevant time and place, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:23.02.2026 Dinesh 4 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.983 of 2026 DATE:23.02.2026 Dinesh