APHC010204542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3066/2026 Between: 1. PALAGATI MALLIKARJUN REDDY, S/O. SHANKAR REDDY, AGED 53 YEARS,R/O. HARINATHAPURAM, NELLORE TOWN,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT NELAPADUAMARAVATI, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,BUCHIREDDYPALEM P.S., SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...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 pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.276 of 2025, dated 20.12.2025, on the file of Buchireddypalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3066/2026 ORDER:- The instant Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [for short, „B.N.S.S‟], is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No.276 of 2025, dated 20.12.2025, on the file of Buchireddypalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.12.2025 at Salmanpuram Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 approached the informant and induced him to procure paddy from local farmers by promising market price along with a commission of Rs.100/- per putti, claiming they had contacts with paddy dealers in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka; believing their representations, the informant procured about 4700 puttis of paddy worth approximately Rs.2.84 crores, but the accused, with fraudulent intention, failed to pay an amount of Rs.75.00 lakhs, and when questioned on 23.11.2025, they allegedly threatened him, leading to the discovery that they had similarly cheated others, thereby committing cheating and criminal breach of trust, and based on the report of the informant, the case was registered. 3. Heard Malireddy Gowtham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as Accused No. 1, is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is further contended that the petitioner has repaid more than 90% of the transaction amount and that the alleged outstanding amount of Rs.75,00,000/- constitutes less than 10% of the total transaction value, as even stated by the de facto complainant. It is also submitted that the said balance amount arose due to a dispute regarding the rate at which the transaction value is to be calculated, since the total quantity of 4700 puttis was not delivered in a single batch on one day and the price of paddy varied from day to day. Therefore, the variation in prices has resulted in a dispute as to the applicable rate for calculating the value of each putti. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of a commercial transaction, and the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. It is contended that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the inception of the transaction and that the allegations, even if taken at face value, only disclose a monetary dispute relating to settlement of accounts. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the investigation is still pending and some 4 more witnesses are yet to be examined. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that the dispute between the parties appears to be predominantly civil in nature arising out of a commercial transaction. This Court at this stage cannot decide the culpability of the allegations made against the petitioner. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner/ Accused No.1 shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court, within one (1) week from today and shall furnish a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court; ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., till further orders. iii) The petitioner shall be available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; iv) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer. 5 v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the concerned Court. 7. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. 8. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 24.04.2026. UPS 6 48 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3066 OF 2026 24.04.2026 UPS