N Sreenivasulu Reddy @ Narasareddigari Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

[350 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI /#i<r::=-i THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶2

: PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS"GE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCH

¶4

CRIMINAL PETl"ON NO: 5668 OF 2025

¶5

Between :

¶6

N. Sreenivasulu Reddy @ NarasareddigarI' Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/¥&`i;;feaei Narasareddigari Narasimha Rec!dy, Aged 58 years, Occ: Cultivation Gum Business, R/o 15-1-22, CTM Road, Sivaji Nagar, MadanapaIIe Town, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶7

Smt. Narasareddi Radha Rani @ Narasareddigari Radha Rani, W/o Narasareddigari sreenivasulu Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o 15-1-22, CTM Road, Sivaji Nagar, MadanapaIIe Town, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

Sri R.Rajendra (a) Rangu Rajendrau S/o R.Gurappa, Aged 66 years, Occ Document Writer at Sub^-Res.istrar Office Compound, Madanapalle Town, R/o H.No.2-16-A, Ammi€ileni Street, MadanapaIIe Town and MandaI, Annamayya District,`Ahdhra Pradesh.

¶9

Sri Tallapally Surya Mohan Re£qc!y @ T.Surya Mohan Reddy, S/o T.Venkata Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ Real Estate Broker, R/o 9-88-1, lsakanuthipalle, Kondamarrip|a!ie `''ptyanchayat, BasI'nikOnda Village, Madanapalle Town and Mandal, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner/Accused 1 to 4

¶10

AND

¶11

I:; ns Ipa:Fi coef €tnadt ihorna, pArnandaeihaJy7: rBTsgt rl c`3 taRt:OpnreHsoeunie:dObf;cpeJ'bMca#onsaepcaJ Iteo rI,I High Court at Amaravathi.

¶12

Respondent/Complainant

¶13

PetI-lion under Section 482f437/439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in 'the I ,---¥(:, -. circumstances stated in the affidavi_I-,ffl_?d in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased iQ--tdireC± the Respondent to release thei petitioners/Al to A4 on bail in the c6t7cS,rit bi-their arrest in crime No.71/2025, I.~-i I,. _.. dated: 29/04/2025, for the offence u/ss l318(4), 335, 336, 316(2), 322, 326 (3), 340(2), 339, 338, 3(5) BNS,175(3).1BNSS, on the file of Madanapalle lI Town Police Station, Annamayya D,istrict in the interest of Justice.

¶14

./, ,\

¶15

|.i .

¶16

couNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: Sri Daraboina Subramanyam

¶17

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:

¶18

Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following ORDEP` '

¶20

[3504]

¶21

APHCO10275462025

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5668/2025

¶28

Between:

¶29

N Sreenivasulu Reddy @ Narasareddigari ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) Sreenivasulu Reddy and Others

¶30

AND

¶31

The State Of Andhra Pradesh

¶32

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶34

SUBRAMANYAM DARABOINA

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶36

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶37

The Court made the following Order:

¶38

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., is filed by the petitioners herein/Al to A4 seeking to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.71 of 2025 of Madanapa''e ll Town Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 335, 336, 316(2), 322, 326, 340(2), 339, 338, 3(5) of BNS and Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶39

Brief facts of the case are that, on a Private complaint filed by the complainant A.V. Ramana Reddy alleging that Al along with A2 to A4 colluded with each other, created documents forging the Signatures Of complainant and his wife and got registered the same in favour of A1/A2 for

¶40

&=_-_ct I-,--<S\

¶41

\

¶42

wrongful gain to knock away_the valuable property of the defacto complainant. ln view of the private complaint, the instant FIR was emanated.

¶43

Heard Mr. Subramanyam Daraboina, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶44

Perused the material on record.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the alleged registered sale deed dated 21.5.2012 transacted in the year 2012, wherein, the defacto complainant and the lSt petitioner are purchasers in the said sale deed. He submits that several transactions took place between the petitioners 1 and 2 and the defacto complainant., the said facts were conveniently bypassed and moulded in favour of the defacto complainant by way designed private complain+I.

¶46

The learned counsel also submits that the instant private complaint filed after lapse of more than eleven years only to settle the private scores with the defacto complainant and so as to put a pressure to withdraw the civil suit (O.S NO.212 of 2019 filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 against the defacto complainant)., the said private complaint and consequential FIR, is a mere brainchild of the defacto complainant so as to settle the civil suit pending against him by the petitioners 1 and 2. At last, the learned counsel submits that the police are trying to arrest them without there being any evidence against them and simply basing on the allegations alleged in the complaint. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.

¶47

On the contrary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed grant of bail and submits that five witnesses LWl to LW5 were examined and since the investigation is in progress, if in case the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. Hence, sought for dismissal of the criminal petition.

¶48

•--a?

¶49

y

¶50

Apparently, the defacto complainant filed Private Complaint on o2.12.2024 before the JFCM, wladanapalle, alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery in respect of the regd. documents dated 28.06.2012, 12.06.2012 and 22.10.2018 that is after lapse of more than ll years. lt is also brought to notice of this Court that the petitioners 1 & 2 filed O.S No.210 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle arraying the defacto complainant and his wife as defendants 1 & 2. In the said suit, the Civil Court also granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs therein, who are petitioners 1 & 2 in the present case. lt seems, the petitioners 1 & 2 are husband and wife, who are aged about 58 and 54 respectively, the 3rd petitioner who is the document writer aged about 66 years, 4th petitioner is aged about 57 years.

¶51

Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to consider the pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed with the following dI|reCtiOnS:-

¶52

i. ln the event of arrest of the pe{i{ioners, the petitioners shall be enlarged on ball On executing a Personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer;

¶53

ii. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating officer once in a fortnight i.e.7 On let and 15th of every month between 10.00 A.M and 01:00 P.M., till filing of the charge sheet.

¶54

iii. The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation by a police officer as and when required, and they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts

¶55

of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the coLIrt Or tO any POliCe Officer.

¶56

Sd/-G. HELA NAiDU ASSISTANT RE TRAR

¶57

R

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

-Fo sECTIONOFF[.CER R

¶60

To