1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2026 Dated 10.07.2026 Date of reserved for orders :Nil Date of pronouncement :10.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010350502026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 766/2026 Between: RAJYOG MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-16/01, PASCHIM MARGDLF PHASE-I, GURUGRAM, HARYGNA - 122002,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVEMR. RAHUL CHAUDHARY. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, V. MADUGULA POLICE STATIONANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3. GANTA SUNEETHA, W/O. AJAY KOLIA,ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.47 OF 2026,V. MADUGULA POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. AJAY KOLIA, S/O KOLIA SRINIVASA RAO,ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.47 OF 2026,V. MADUGULA POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2026 Dated 10.07.2026 Counsel for the Petitioner: JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), challenging the order dated 22.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, V. Madugula, in Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2026 in Crime No.47 of 2025 of V. Madugula Police Station. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the learned Trial Court, concurring with the submission that the petitioner is the owner of the disputed property, directed the petitioner to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only), with sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the Court. However, the order does not specify the number of sureties to be furnished by the petitioner. Since the petitioner himself is the owner of the disputed property, there is no necessity to direct him to furnish sureties. A direction to the petitioner to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), without furnishing sureties, would 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2026 Dated 10.07.2026 suffice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order of the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), without furnishing sureties. The remaining conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court shall hold good. 4. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 10.07.2026 RSI Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2026 Dated 10.07.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 766 of 2026 Dated: 10.07.2026 RSI 47