Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Tadi Venkata Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 June, 2025
--
I
AMARAVATl
lN THE HIGH COURT OE. ANDHRA PRADESH AT
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
:PRESENT: tb
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO-. 5692 OF 2025
Betwee n :
Tadi Venkata Reddy, S/o Shabara Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ-. Business,
R/o MahalakShmi Div-lnes Nagarjuna Street, Ashok Nagar, Eluru Eluru
Distr'lct, Erstwhile West Godvari District.
...petitioner/let Accused
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
2. Kongala Srihari, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 38 years, R/o D.No: 16A-1-
125/ll, AIla Nani Colony, Eluru, Eluru D'lstrict, Erstwhile West Godavari
D-lstrict.
...Respondent/Defacto Complainant
petition under section 482 of BNSS, 2023, is filed Praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed -ln support of the cr’Iminal Petition,
the High Court may be Pleased tO grant AnticipatOry Bail to the Petitioner by
directing the police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with crime No. 257 of 2024 of Eluru ” Town Police Station, Eluru
District.
The pet’ltiOn coming On for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and the
affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri petluri
Naga Raju, Advocate for the Petitioner and Of Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1, the Court made the following
APHCO10276042025
IN THE HIGH,,COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH +
AT AMARAVATl [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5692/2025
Between :
Tadi Venkata Reddy .,.PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and …RESPONDENT/CO’MPLAINANT(S)
OthersCounsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, tBNSSJ) is filed on behalf of the petitioner /
A.1 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.257 of 2024 of EIuru ll Town Police
Station, EIuru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
318(4), 308(2), 308(5), 351(2), 74, 77, 78,111(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya NyayaSanhita, 2023 (for short, cBNS’).
2) The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the defacto complainant
borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- at an interest rate of 2% from the uncle of
Medapati Sudhakara Reddy, i.e., the petitioner / A.1. Subsequently, A.2, A.3,
2and one vldya sagar vlslted the residence of the defacto complalnant durI’ng
hl’s absence. Driring their’ visit, they allegedly behaved indecently with thecomplainant’s wife and coerced her I’ntO handl-ng over three blank promissory
notes bearing her signature, along with a gold ring. lt I-S further alleged that A.2pulled the saree of the complaI-nant’s wl’fe and made several l’mproper
demands, including the extortion of a substantial amount of money from her
3) Learned counsel for the petI’tiOner/A.1 submits that the complaint
contains no specific overt acts agaI’nSt the petitioner, and the alleged offences
are solely attributed to A.2 to A.4. It I-s contended that the essentl’al ingredientsof the offences are not made out agal’nst the petltI-Oner, nor IS there any
evI’dence I|ndiCatjng his knowledge of or I-nVOIVement jn the alleged coercion orextortion,- the petI’tiOnerjs antI’CiPatOry ba” (Crl.M.P.No.201 of 2025) was
erroneously disnll’SSed by the V Additional Dl-strict and sessions Judge, Eluru,
on 29.04.2025,I the petitI-Oner js a law-abl-ding cI-tl-Zen with a fixed residence,
wilII-ng to furnish surety and comply with any conditions,- the investigatI-On I|S
substantially complete, and there is no risk of tamperI’ng With evidence. In view
of the imminent threat of arrest and the hardship ll-kely to be caused, the
learned counsel prays for the grant of antI-Cl-PatOry bail.
4) On the other hand, sri G. NeelothpaI, learned Assl-slant publI-C
prosecutor, appearl’ng for the Respondent/state, opposes the grant of
anticjpatory bail on the ground that the investI’gatiOn I-S Still pendl-ng.
5) I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated theI-r
subml’ssl-ons on par with the contentions presented jn the petition as we” as in
the Report. corfsequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel
need not be reproduced.
6) “ah,-pa/ v. Ra/’esfr7, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is necessary
for the court while consI’dering a bail application, to assess whether, based on1 (2020) 2 SCC 118
=| rill
3
athe eviden{iary record, pr,-ma rae,’e or reasonable grounds exist {o believe that
the accused had committed the crime.
I
7) A Court doesn’t need to give elaborate reasons while granting bail,
mainly when the case is a{ the initial stage, and the allegations of the offences
A
by the accused would not have been crystallised as such.
a) ln Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and =nothePl r
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed th.at:
”Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted
only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused
would not misuse his liberty”.
9) The learned’ counsel for the petitioner contends that monetary
transactions took place between the petitioner and the de facto complainant.
The petitioner has filed S.T.C.No.130 of 2024 against the de facto
complainant under Sections 200 of the Cr.P.C., 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act,1881, and 420 of the lPC. Furthermore, the complaI-nt lodged
by the de facto complainant expressly refers to the nlonetary transactions
between himself and the petitioner/A.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed a copy of the order in Crl.P.No.9029 of 2024, wherein this Court was
pleased to grant bail to A.2 to A.4. ,
10) The reading of the order in Crl.P.No.9029 of 202®4 indicates that the
allegation made by the defacto complainant against the accused persons is
that he has borrowed money from A.1 in the year 2023; despite payments Of
several amounts of money, still A.1 was not satisfied with it; in the yea+ 2024,
the petitioners / A.2 to A.4 forcibly came and demanding repayments Of
6
money which were not due. A reading of the allegations suggests that A.2 to
A.4 forcibly entered the de facto complainant]s house and harassed his wife.
upon perusal of the report, i{ is evident that’no specific allegation has been
made against A.1, stating that he went to the complainant’s residence,
2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156
I I
I
4
threatened hl’s vyife, and ha_rassed her. However, the material on record does
not dI’SCIOSe any specific ac6usatjons agal-nst the petitIOner/Al that dllreCtly
implicate hl’m in the commissl’on of the offence, other than the exI|Stence of a
f”nancjal transaction between him and the de facto complainant. Therefore, +
thI’S Court is of the considered vI-eW that the possjbl’lity of the complal’nt being
filed against the petitioner due to the exl-stI-ng monetary dispute and the fI-lI’ng
of a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be
ruled out.
ll) The defacto complajnant has contended that he has repaid most of the
amount. However, I-tb appears that no receI|PtS Or any written endorsements
evI’dencing such payments have been produced. This issue, however, I-S a
matter to be adJ-udI’Cated in S.T.C.No.130 of 2024. upon inquI-ry, the learned
I
Ass[-stan{ pubII-C Prosecutor submI’tS, based On jnStruCtl-OnS received, that no
crI’minal antecedents have been reported agal-nst the pet[‘tioner.
t
12) At this stage, the allegations against the petjtjoner are subjected to the
trjal’s outcome. lt js settled law that mere apprehension that the accused
would tamper wI-th,the prosecutI-On eV[-denCe Or intjmjdate the wl’tnesses
cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the
accused trI-ed lfor such tamperjng/intjmI’datI-On.
+l?) . :n siddharam satlingappa Mhetre v. state of IVIaharashtra3, the
Hon]b[e Apex court ‘Iajd down’cer{ain factors and parameters that must be
considered while dealing vyjth antI-CI’PatOry bat-I. ]t further held as follows.-
1F:::_Ar_r:st s,poulq be the last option, and it should be restricted to
thh::::^x:e+pLt!Of_aI_ , case? Where I arre:i-Ing-i;e–;-C:;S;; i’;;;;:ruatiLvUe
b^a^sv::.,?: the fa:ts and circumstances :f ih-at -;;:;.-ih’: ;;:v; u:;:t
ca::ae:uaI:!^n^exJ:_:::,e ,i,h.: .ePt-Ire available rec;;i,- igivic-;I”a’;;”ut;`e
a:!ehgo:i:1n+S^::r:^ctyyJ =tt:ibute,d tO the accus;d, ;;I-c\; =rer::`;rv:;uo’;:te;I ;-y
other material and circumstances on record.
3 (2011) 1 SCC 694
c`*+-i_=_-±-_—-< -,–_
5
6
fl
14) It I-S also a we”-accepted prI-nCiPle that bai”s the rule and the jaj”s the
eEXnC,e^P_i:a_:_’::4e Hon’ble Apex court in i.chidambar;; i.-‘ii`;:c::;:i-e`l :f
I
Enforeemenf4, considering a” the ,earlier judgments, observed that the basic a
JurlSPrudence relatlng to ba” remains the sam6 I’n as much as the grant of ba”
is the rule and refusal l’s the exception to ensure that, the accused has the
opportunity of securl-ng fair trial.
®
15) lt IS not the prosecutIOn’s case that the petltIOner failed to cooperate
wI-th the I-nVeStigat,Ion, and he is not available for I-nterrogatI-On. There l’s no
indicatIOn Of a llkellhood that the petltIOner would abscond froin the JurISdlCtI’On
of the court. The petjtjoner has expressed wI”lI-nghess to cooperate with the
investigation agency. The objectlof the bail I-S neitrler punjtI’Ve nor preventative.
The likelihood of levyI’ng accusations with the intention of harming or I
embarrassing the p:titjoner through pofentI’al arrest is not improbable,
especially in the context of monetary transactions. 1 I I
16) G,’ven the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prl’ma
I
facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to thI-S
case, this court views that even I’f the petitioner is granted pre-arrest ba”
I
there cannot be any apprehensI-On for the prosecutI-On that he will tamper wI’ththe evI-dence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioner has a
permanent abode at Eluru. The facts do not warrant custodial I-nterrOgatl’On Of
the petitI-Oner jn the nature of the accusations. GrantI’ng antI’CI-PatOry ba” to thepetitioner would not impede the ongol’ng investigation.
I I
17) Upon careful perusal of the materI'al on record,
as there
__ -_ -_ is
`_ no
I |\~ risk
I |\+\\ of
\+I
interference with the pngojng investjgation’ by the petjtl-oner, thI’S Court finds
that anticI-PatOry bal’I can
can bebe flrantf±r,
granted +A
to +h^
the __+:1:_____,’^
petitioner/A.1I under
i
certain
COndjtions.-
i
i) petitioner Its directed to surrender before the statllOn House
offI®Cer, Eluru ” Town poll-Ce Stat[-on, Eluru DistrI’Ct, Wl’thin two (2)
4 (2O19)9SCC66
+i_—-
weeks lfrOm, today. On such surrender, the pet,’tioner shall be
enlarged on bail on hI-S eXe!Cuting a personal bond for a sum of
¢Rs.20,000/-(Rupees ,Twenty Thousand only) with two suretI-eS
I (
of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned
Investigating Officer’.
ii) The petitI”Oner Shall cooperate with the investI’gatiOn and he sha”
make himself avaI’lable for interrogation by a police officer as
and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any I-nducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to t`he court or to any police officer.
18) lt I-S explicitly ClarifI-ed that the observations made in this order are
_ 1Preliminary and pertain solely to the decI-SI-On On the Present Petition Without
indicatl-ng a stance pn the case;s merits. TheIInvestigating Agency is affirmedto have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the
observations in this order.
¢
19) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition I-S a//OWeC/.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition,
_ -.—,_-=-i—,–+I.:r=-I–L—_ –
shall stand closed. gr
SD/- K.SRIN[VAS,’i. i-RAJU
ASS!S’l~ANT ,FagE9lSTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To71. The Station House Offlcer, E!uru H Town Pollce Station, Eluru DlstriCt
2. One CCto Sr-I Petluri Naga Raju, Advocate [OPUC] , A
High Court Of A.P.,
3. Two CCs toPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
AmaraVati. [OUT]
4. One spare COPY.
PSD
\
-=*
HIGH COURT
TMR,J
DATED..16/06/2025
ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER
CRLP.No.5692 of 2025
ALLOWED