The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7953 0F 2025 Between: -District Sirriguppa Town Of Bailari

1. P.VL.Prasld Rao_, S/o Raghaviah , Aged about 66 years, Occ Business, R/o 2. D Sridhar, s/o Babu RaoAged 43 years, occco-operative Bank of Karnataka 3 S:lLy^9^:rtith Edwin paut, S/o Samson prakash Aged about 40 years, occ R/o. Sirriguppa Town Of Ballari Dis(rict Of karnata-kl State trussrness H/o. tippaturu of Tumukuru District Of Karnataka State. ' Of Klarnataki S1ite. AND ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 3 TO 5 The state of reranoana, Represented by pubric prosecutor, High court for the State of Telang"ana. ,..RESPONDENT Petition under section 492 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Fetition, the Hijn c;;;;"y be pleased^to enlarge the petitioners, on anticipatory bail in the eve-nt of arrest in relating to crime No. 144 oF 202s, dated z2-b4-2d2s, on the fite of the Bodhan Rural Police Station, Nizamabad District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri KATTKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. The Court made the following: ORDER I I I i I I I I I ; 1 i -! 2 responding in positive way, he went to Thumukuru district of 3 times but thc said persons sent return by saying different reasons.

3. Heard Mr.Katika Ravinder Reddy, learncd counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Sycd Yasar Mamoon, lea4.red Additional Public Prosecutor lbr the rcspondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not comrnitted the off-ences and have been falsely implicated in thc above critre. Eveu according to the allegations rladc in the complaint, allegations are levelled against other accuscd. Initially the crime was rcgistered for the ollences under Sections 316 (2) and 3 I 8 (4) of BNS. Later, the police included Section 316 (5) of BNS, with an intention to harass the petitioners and to avoid the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS and thc guidelincs issued by the l{on'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharl. He furthcr submitted that the petitioners are not having any other criminal antecedents and they arc teady and willing to abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court and they are also ready to cooperate with the investigation. I Ience, the petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. '(2014) 8 scc 273 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIONN o.7953 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short .BNSS,) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 in crime No. r r4 of 2025 on the file of Bodhan Rural police Station, Nizan.rabad District, registered fbr the oflences punishable under Sections 316 (2) and jlg (4) r/w . 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for shorr ,BNS,).

2. Tlre case of the prosecution is that on 22.04.2025 at I6:00 hours the complainant/ Bodhanampati Srinivasarao came to the porice Station and lodged a cornplaint stating that on24.10.2024 1) Ramesh Naidu, 2) Suresh, 3) Prasad, 4) Sridhar and 5) Sannu @ Surjith have come to complainant through Yerravar Balaji R/o. Vami, they introduced thernselves as they are running chandradara fuce Mill in Karnataka at Thumukuru District and by knowing that they are buying paddy since some years in Bodhan, complainant himself sent paddy of his crops worth of Rs.23,00,000/- in their Lorries, they told that they will give money in a week and they took away his paddy along with 1) yaddeti Sailu R/o, Peddamavandi, 2) Shalk Shadulla R/o. Raikur Camp paddy also, they asked about the money to the owners but they are not _.?

5. Per contra,lcarned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioncrs have committed a grave offence and there are specific allegations are levellcd against the petitionels to attract the ingredients under Section 316 (5) of BNS He further subrnitted'that accused No' l is the orvn brothcr of accused No 2 and accused No 2 belongs to Mysore of Kamataka State and he is doing paddy business' Accused No.3 is a father of accused No 2 Accused Nos 4 and 5 are friends of accused Nos.1 and 2 and they all together doing paddy business ln the month of October-N ovember o12024' the accusecl Nos l to 5 purchased paddy from thc farmers of Saloora camp' Kadurki' I{ampoor' Chinnamavandi, Peddamavandi, Rampoor' Bandarupally' Raikpur camp and its surrounding viilagcrs through one Yerrawar Balaji' belongs to varni Mandal and promised to farmers as they rvill pay money within one rveek to ten clays, but they cheated the farmers by not paying the tartners. He further submitted that there are specific allegations tevelled against the petitioners and investigation is under progress. Hence, played to dismiss the petition'

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record' it reveals that Accused No. I is the brother of Accused No 2' and 'A'ccused No'2 is aresidentofMysore,KamatakaState,wherehcisengagedinthe , l a^l -"q paddy business. Accused No.3 is the father of Accused No.2. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are friends of Accused Nos.l and 2. All of them are jointly involved in the paddy business. ln the months ol October _Novernber 2024, Accused Nos. I to 5 purchased paddy from farmers in the villages of Saloora camp, I(adurki, Rarnpoor, chinnamavandi, peddamavandi, Rampoor, Bandarupally, Raikpur camp and surounding areas, through one Yerawar Balaji, a resident of Varni Manda[. They promised the farmers that payment would be made within one week to ten days. However, they failed to make payrnent and allegedly cheated the farmers and thcre are specific allegations are Ievelled against the petitioners. Evcn accordi,g to the Iearned Additional pubric prosecutor investigation is undcr progress. 7' Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipalory bail to thc petitioner. 8 Accordingly, this Crirninal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY A SITANT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bodhan. 2. The Station House Officer, Bodhan Rural Police Station, Nizamabad. 3. One CC to Sri. Katika Ravinder Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Sri. Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana_

5. Two CD Copies (/+ -fi ::r:' tk?Tg HIGH COURT DATED:041O712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7953 of 2025 ,n ---1..--.- In,,( 7ta' (-, c' t 02 sEPm (n : c j a r'.. TcrlEo \\{ * THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED 8n- 9.7t-.> d 1-)