Disposed¶36

Y Nagendra Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2026CRLP/4969/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appearance-dispensation ruling: S.528 BNSS petition by accused in S.354 IPC case (C.C.No.1082/2025, JFCM-cum-Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tirupati); quash prayer restricted at arguments to dispensing personal appearance; State opposed citing specific allegations; presence dispensed with except when trial Judge requires it; petition disposed of; AP High Court at Amaravati, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, 13.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance of the petitioner (Accused No.1) in C.C.No.1082 of 2025 dispensed with, except on dates when the learned trial Judge feels his presence is necessary; interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ¶36

Y Nagendra Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010311392026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶5

[3504]

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4969/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

Y NAGENDRA BABU, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,R/O D.NO.10-188/1, PRASANTHI NAGAR,CHANDRA GIRI,TITRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDRAGIRI URBAN PS.TIRUPATI DISTRICTTHROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶14

YALAMADYAM SUNEETHA, AGED ABOUT 39, F.N0.67, PRASANTHI NAGAR,KOTHAPET,CHANDRAGIRITIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

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 Courtbe pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1082 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate - Cum- Principal Civil Judge

¶17

¶18

(Junior Division), Tirupati against the petitioner/Accused No.1 and pass such

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

Petition under Section 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 be pleased to dispense with the filing of the charge sheet and FIR in connection with C.C.No.1082 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate - Cum- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati and pass such

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶22

Petition under Section 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 be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.1082 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate - Cum- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati and pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.NANDA KISHORE KONDURI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4969 of 2026

¶28

The Court made the following Order:

¶29

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1082 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Class-cum-Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein was charged for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, in CC No.1082 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Class-cum-Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati.

¶32

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer to the extent of dispensing with the personal appearance of petitioner herein in the CC proceedings before the trial Court.

¶33

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and as such, he opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

¶35

However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the entire material available on record, the presence of petitioner (Accused) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Class-cum-Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati in CC No.1082 of 2025 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned Judge feels that his presence is necessary.

¶36