APHC010596632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11541/2025 Between: THENGEM SHIREESHA, D/O T.VEERA NARAPPA,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER,ENUMALAPALLI VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHY MANDAL,SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHIGUNTUR DISTRICT THROUGH SHO, KOTHACHERVU POLICE STATION,SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 2. SMT KOTHAKOTA MAMATHA, W/O. RAM MOHAN, AGE 31 YEARS, R/O. KODAPAGANI PALLI VILLAGE, KOTHAVCHERVU MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 05.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.11541 OF 2025 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Dr.SATTARU RAJANI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID 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.2, in connection with Crime No.111 of 2025 on the file of Kothachervu Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, which is registered for the offence under Section 82(1) read with 3(5) of BNS. 2. Heard Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent. 2 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is working as Village Revenue Officer. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein used to meet Accused No.1, who is the V.R.O of the neighbouring village on official meetings, which led to misunderstanding relationship between them. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the Petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail since there are specific allegations made against the Petitioner to attract the alleged offence and Accused Nos.1 and 2 are absconding. It is further submitted that the investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses. 5. Considering the submissions made on either side and upon a bare perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that a prima facie case of bigamy is made out against the Petitioner. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged, and also taking into consideration the abscondence of the Petitioner and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. 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:03.02.2026 Dinesh 3 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11541 of 2025 DATE:03.02.2026 Dinesh