APHC010469222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9300/2025 Between: 1. SRI DAMARLA VENKATA BHARGAV, S/O D. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 12 KOTHAPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SRI GUMMADI ANANDH PRAKASH BABU, W/O KOTESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O D. NO.3 BRUNDAVAN GARDEN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 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 Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge No. 4 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR. No. 325 of 2023, on the file of Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District U/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 IPC, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9300/2025 SRI DAMARLA VENKATA BHARGAV, S/O D. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 12-9-12, SHIVALAYAM TEMPLE KOTHAPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. SRI GUMMADI ANANDH PRAKASH BABU, W/O KOTESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O D. NO.3-28-1/A, BETHASTA HOUSE, NDAVAN GARDEN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR. No. 325 of 2023, on the file of Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District U/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 IPC, and to pass itioner/accused: Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA SRI DAMARLA VENKATA BHARGAV, S/O D. SUBBAIAH, AGED 12, SHIVALAYAM TEMPLE ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT SRI GUMMADI ANANDH PRAKASH BABU, W/O KOTESWARA RAO 1/A, BETHASTA HOUSE, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 Grounds of the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR. No. 325 of 2023, on the file of Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District U/s 420, 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9300/2025 ORDER : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.325 of 2023 of Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC). 2. Heard Mr.K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is false, concocted, and mala fide in nature. He would further submit that the complainant has deliberately implicated the petitioner by making vague and omnibus allegations without placing any material or substantive evidence on record. A bare perusal of the FIR would demonstrate that no specific overt act or role is attributed to the petitioner. The allegations are wholly vague, unsubstantiated, and do not satisfy the threshold required to constitute criminal liability. He would further submit that there are no independent witnesses or corroborative materials to support the allegations made against the petitioner. Mere bald assertions cannot be a ground to 4 deprive the petitioner liberty and the petitioner is not connected to the present case. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, since, there is no change of circumstances and in the light of the specific overt-acts attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/ Accused No.4. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and to move a regular bail application, and that a direction may be issued to dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible. 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. Considering the submissions made, the Criminal Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner/accused No.4 to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due and sufficient opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. 5 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 06.02.2026 KKV