IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2183 OF 2026 I X Between: J.V.Chalapathi, S/o Jamjala Venkatappa, Aged about 63 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o D.No. 11-97/4, Kondareddy Mission, Madanapalle Cross piler Town, Annamayya District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petition Accused No.2 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.32/2026 dated 27.01.2026 on the file of the Filer police station (U), AnamayyaDistrict; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.2, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.32 of 2026 on the file of Piler Police Station, Annamayya District, which is registered for the offences under Sections 320(3), 333, 324(5), 329(4), 326(g), 120(2), 115(2), 308(5) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2 Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused 2. , No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for State / Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner and the other Accused are the bonafide purchasers of the subject land. Learned counsel would further submit that, as per the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Piler Mandal, the vendors of the De facto complainant were never in possession of the subject property and it is the vendor of the Petitioner and other Accused, who are actually in possession of the said lands and the revenue records also reflect their It is further submitted that, without preferring an appeal to the RDO names. against the said report, the De facto complainant high handedly trespassed into the subject lands. When, Accused No.1 questioned the acts of the De facto complainant, a galata occurred. Learned counsel would furthersubmit that Petitioner / Accused No.2 was not present at the relevant time and place. It is further submitted that there are civil suits pending between the parties. Learned counsel would contend that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner underwent three surgeries and is still under constant medical supervision. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that 4. the presence of the Petitioner was shown in the complaint. It is further submitted that the investigation is still going on. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, this is the second application filed by the Petitioner and the earlier 3 application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court. There are no grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material 5. available on record, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties aopears \ to be civil in nature relating to title and possession over the subject property. It is - also not in dispute that civil suits are pending between the parties. Though the prosecution contends that the presence of the Petitioner is mentioned in the complaint, the specific role attributed to the Petitioner requires to be established during the course of investigation. Taking into consideration the medical condition of the Petitioner, who is stated to have undergone multiple surgeries and is under continuous medical supervision, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner may not be necessary at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed granting anticipatory bail to 6. the Petitioner / Accused No.2, on the following conditions; The Petitioner / Accused No.2 shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court, within one (01) week from today and shall furnish personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of concerned Court. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or influence the witnesses. The Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 4 (V) The Petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court, (vi) The Petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week, i.e., on every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM, till filing of charge sheet. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.Tata Rao DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OF^ER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The XI Additional Sessions Judge, Piler. 2. The Station House Officer, Piler Police Station (U), Annamayya District. 3. One CC to Sri. Sricharan Telaprolu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCS to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 5. One spare copy ^,9 HIGH COURT Dr.VJP,J DATED:24/03/2026 ORDER CRLP.No.2183 of 2026 ALLOWED o IP’. CP , ,a H WR 288 ^ <y> ★ <> ^SPA’tC^