Tadiparthi Bapi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

#1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order?

#2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

#3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ? Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No ____________________________ A. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J 3 APHC010280032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5785/2025 Between: Tadiparthi Bapi Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

#1. VENKATA MOHAN RAO PATHAKOTA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

#1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Crl.P.No.5785 of 2025 ORDER: This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNNS], seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail in respect of unregistered Crime, pertaining to the Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban District, in connection with a complaint lodged by one Veeragandham Hemalatha with several allegations including an attempt to kill her on 08.05.2025 and hence, the petitioner is afraid of danger of arrest as Police are repeatedly summoning him.

#4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition. Heard both side extensively. Point for determination: Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 482 of BNSS, in respect of an unregistered Crime, pursuant to the complaint dated 12.05.2025? If so, on what terms? Sequence of events:-

#5. A written complaint dated 12.05.2025 annexed to the Petition was submitted by the informant to the Police with the following allegations:- 5 [i] “She is a widow, engaged in Textiles and real estate business. She had two children, (1) Vamsi Krishna -son and (2) Sai Priyanka - daughter. The informant got acquaintance with the petitioner herein in a marriage in connection with purchase of a flat. Thereafter, closeness developed between them. On sharing of information about the death of her husband, the petitioner assured that he will support her. Thereafter, convincing her children, he married the informant. When photos were about to be taken while tying Tali, on the pretext that petitioner is a Government employee, he stopped taking of photos. Informants all income out of the real estate business was saved with the petitioner, as he assured to return the money for her children future needs. From 2018 there was change in the behavior of the petitioner, he started beating the informant coming in drunken state. When she asked the petitioner to perform the marriage of her daughter, he did not evince any interest nor extended any financial support. [ii] Further, in the year 2021, the petitioner got transferred to Pulivendula and at his instance her son Vamsi Krishna was sent to Pulivendula for being with the petitioner, on the assurance that he will set up some business with Vamsi Krishna. However, on 7th March 2021, at about 8.00 ‘O’ clock, the petitioner informed the informant that Vamsi Krishna is not doing well and asked her to come immediately. She along with her son-in-law and daughter went to Pulivendula. The petitioner was staying in a hotel, when they enquired him about Vamsi Krishna, he stated that Vamsi Krishna is in Government Hospital. They found Vamsi Krishna in the mortuary of the Hospital. Then a complaint was lodged by the informant. [iii] The petitioner requested the informant not to initiate any case and sent the dead body in an ambulance. Thereafter, he was behaving well with the informant and her daughter. Later, when the informant asked to set up a business in the name of her daughter, petitioner grew wild and fisted her claiming that she can complain wherever she want, threatening that she will be killed as and how her son was killed. On 08.05.2025 when the informant approached the petitioner along with one Geetha Kumari at his office, stating them not to come at office, 6 assured to give money and asked them to come to Guest house. When she was about to go to Guest House, he abused her as a bitch and caught hold of her neck, attempted to kill her. Hence, she approached Police to take action against the petitioner.” Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:-

#6. The informant is habituated to initiate complaints to extract money from the petitioner herein, on one pretext or the other and the petitioner is afraid of danger of arrest and threat to his employment at the fag end of his service. The contents of the complaint copy made available to the petitioner by the Police is not disclosing any serious offence, but indicating the effort of informant to implicate the petitioner in attempt murder case, which is cognizable and non-bailable. Therefore, petitioner is under threat of arrest. Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor:

#7. Since no crime has been registered so far, the question of granting bail or anticipatory bail does not arise. The apprehension of the petitioner is therefore baseless, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Precedents:

#8. Guidance of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to grant of pre-arrest bail, commencing from the observations in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. State of Punjab1 are referred and discussed in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2,