Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4240 (AP)

G. Gopalakrishna Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/4381/2021 · 2026-06-30

Tuhin Kumar Gedela

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Date of reserved for orders : . . . . . . . . . Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2026 Date of uploading : 07.07.2026 APHC010274682021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4381/2021 Between: 1. G. GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O G. RAMI REDDY, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. PVT SERVICE, R/O THATIMAKULAPALLI VILLAGE, PENUMUR POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...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 Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the condition No.2 in the order dt. 09.04.2021 passed in CrI.M.P.No.34 of 2021 in Cr.No.28 of 2021 of Pakala Police Station on the file of Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Pakala, which was confirmed by the order dt.09.07.2021 passed in CrI.R.P.No.12 of 2021 on the file of IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor i.e., 'the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with Bank guarantee' and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. R GANGA VARMA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: On 28.04.2023, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 15.06.2026, on which date no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Further, when the matter was listed on 23.06.2026 also, no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Having no other option, this Court directed the matter to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. 2. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner either in person or through counsel, which connotes that the petitioner or his counsel are not evincing any interest in prosecuting the case. 3. In view of the said non-appearance, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 01-07-2026 BMS Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable ☑