Dismissed¶¶30

Cheturvedula Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Anticipatory bail – Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jan 2026CRLP/113/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Criminal Petition No.113/2026; Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; decided 20.01.2026; anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS refused; accused No.2, retired MPDO Cheturvedula Srinivas; Crime No.103/2025, Nagayalanka Police Station, Krishna District; offences under Sections 409, 420 read with 34 IPC; alleged misappropriation of 15th Finance Commission Grant of Rs.59.17 lakhs; CFMS vendor ID/bank account mapping; investigation incomplete; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail cannot be considered at this juncture. ¶¶29

Cheturvedula Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

nnnnnAPHC010005512026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3396]

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 113/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

CHETURVEDULA SRINIVAS, WRONGLY MENTIONED IN FIR AS CH. SREENIVAS S/O GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY,AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 18-73/1, OLD LIBRARY STREET,NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 521185

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Nagayalanka Police Station, Krishna District Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

1.VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 113 of 2026

¶21

Order:

¶22

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking anticipatory bail by the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.103 of 2025 of Nagayalanka Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 read with 34 IPC.

¶23

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused No.1 who is retired A.O and Accused No.2 who is retired MPDO of Nagayalanka, both of them violated the prescribed norms and deliberately transferred funds pertaining to 15^th Finance Commission Grant to the tune of Rs.59.17 lakhs with the active assistance of other accused.

¶24

Heard Sri Veladi Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is accused No.2 who is a retired MPDO. It is a case of misappropriation of funds. The allegation made against the petitioner herein is that he failed to observe to whom the amounts are being transferred through CFMS. Learned counsel would further submit that the computer operator has transferred amounts to his account and also to the third parties instead of transferring

¶26

¶27

amounts to the real beneficiaries through CFMS. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been suffering from severe health issues and hence, finally prays to allow the petition.

¶28

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not yet completed. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 who is retired MPDO of Nagayalanka, and he along with accused No.1 misappropriated 15^th finance commission funds to an extent of 59.17 lakhs. The petitioner herein failed to check the vendors added in the CFMS portal and whom the vendor ID bank account is mapped resulting pecuniary loss to the public funds.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶30