APHC010273972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: 1. BOBBALA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O.SUBBA RAO YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.200 PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL 2. BOBBALA PRATIMA,, YEARS, R/O.PLOT NO.36, D.NO.8 PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., L AND O ., GUNADALA P.S., PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High petitioners/accused No. 5 and 6 in Crime No.31 OF 2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal High Court may be pleased may be pleased IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5596/2025 BOBBALA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O.SUBBA RAO, AGED YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.200, D.NO.8-198, SITAPURAM VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA BOBBALA PRATIMA,, W/O.VENUGOPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O.PLOT NO.36, D.NO.8-135, SITAPURAM COLONY PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., L AND O ., GUNADALA P.S., VIJAYAWADA CITY, REP. BY ITS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of ion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the release of No. 5 and 6 on anticipatory bail in the event on the file of L & O., Gunadala P.S., Vijayawada City ection 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA , AGED ABOUT 61 198, SITAPURAM COLONY , KRISHNA DISTRICT. W/O.VENUGOPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 135, SITAPURAM COLONY PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., L AND O ., VIJAYAWADA CITY, REP. BY ITS. PUBLIC ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of direct the release of the bail in the event of their arrest P.S., Vijayawada City ection 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the the petitioner herein to 2 come on record/implead him as respondent no:2 and permit him to participate in the proceedings in the Crl.P.No;5596 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VINODIN RUTH MADAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5596/2025 ORDER : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 & 6, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 31 of 2025 on the file of L & O., Gunadala P.S., Vijayawada City, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC”). 2. Heard Sri Vinodin Ruth Madapalli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report on 08.03.2025 at around 20:00 hours, stating that the accused, in collusion with each other, once again sold Flat No.4, which was already owned by the Accused Nos.5 and 6, to the complainant by creating, fabricating, and manipulating documents. Based on this complaint, a case in Crime No.31 of 2025 was registered on the file of L & O., Gunadala Police Station, Vijayawada, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B read with 34 of the IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6, are innocent and have no knowledge of the alleged incident. The petitioners are the absolute owners of the disputed 4 property, having purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 17.03.2021 from Suri Anjali and Vemineni Srilakshmi. Subsequently, they came to know that the other accused had sold the same property to the complainant by executing a registered sale deed dated 20.07.2022. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed O.S. No.62 of 2023 before the learned VII Additional District Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, against accused No.1, Suri Anjali, Vemineni Srilakshmi, and the complainant, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is submitted that the present case is purely civil in nature, coloured as a criminal case, and a false case has been foisted against the petitioners to gain unlawful benefit. He would further submit that the petitioners are willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court to secure their presence for investigation and, therefore, prays for grant of pre-arrest bail. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation is still pending, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage may prejudice the case. It is further submitted that the civil disputes regarding ownership of the property are separate and do not bar criminal proceedings, and the petitioners’ claim of ownership does not negate the prima facie criminal liability alleged. It is also submitted that other criminal cases are pending against the petitioners, which indicates a pattern of misconduct and reinforces the need to deny pre-arrest bail. If the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that they would hamper the investigation and interfere with the 5 criminal proceedings. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. He finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are specific overt-acts attributed to the petitioners, and the investigation in the present case is still at a nascent stage. It is also noted that the petitioners have not disclosed the pendency of criminal cases against them, which is also a relevant factor in denying their request for pre-arrest bail. In view of the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage may cause prejudice to the investigation and this Court finds that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at the present time. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 23.02.2026. UPS 6 187 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5596/2025 Dt: 23.02.2026 UPS