Andhra Pradesh High Court

CRLP/8585/2026 of Kogatam Jayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 4 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 5th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 8591 and 8585 OF 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8591 of 2026 Between: 1. KOGATAM NAGI REDDY, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA

APHC010510362026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE 5th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 8591 and 8585 OF 2026

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8591 of 2026

Between:

1. KOGATAM NAGI REDDY, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY,AGED

ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC SOFTWAR ENGINEERR/O. D.NO.3/207, TAPPETAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, MYDUKUR MUNICIPALITY,Y.S.R.

DISTRICT.

2. KOGATAM RAMI REDDY, S/O. NAGESWAR REDDY,AGED ABOUT

YEARS,

OCC

PRIVET

EMPLOY

,R/O.

D.NO3/85/A,

TAPPETAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, MYDUKUR MUNICIPALITY,Y.S.R.

DISTRICT.

3. KOGATAM NAGESWAR REDDY, S/O. LATE NAGI REDDY,AGED

ABOUT

YEARS,

OCC

AGRICULTURE,R/O.

D.NO.3/85/A,

TAPPETAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, MYDUKUR MUNICIPALITY,Y.S.R.

DISTRICT.

4. KOGATAM

VENKATA

SUBBA

REDDY,

S/O.

LATE

NAGI

REDDY,AGED

ABOUT

YEARS,

OCC

AGRICULTURE,R/O.

D.NO.3/83,

TAPPETAVARIPALLE

VILLAGE,

MYDUKUR

MUNICIPALITY,Y.S.R. DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI.

2. THE SHO, MYDUKUR U/G POLICE STATION,Y.S.R KADAPA

DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8585/2026

Between:

1. KOGATAM

JAYAMMA,

W/O.

KOGATAM

VENKATA

SUBBA

REDDY,AGED

ABOUT

YEARS,

OCC

HOUSE

WIFE,R/O.

D.NO.3/83,

TAPPETAVARIPALLE

VILLAGE,

MYDUKUR

MUNICIPALITY,KADAPA DISTRICT.

2. KOGATAM ANUSHA, W/O. RAMI REDDY,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE,R/O. D.NO.3/83, TAPPETAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, MYDUKUR MUNICIPALITY,KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI.

2. THE SHO, MYDUKUR U/G POLICE STATION,Y.S.R KADAPA

DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. D VIGNESHWAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

COMMON ORDER:

These two Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the Petitioners in the two petitions are different, but the crime registered against them is one and the same.

2. The Criminal Petition Nos.8591 and 8585 of 2026 have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.249 of 2026 of Mydukur U/G Police Station, Y.S.R District, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

3. Sri D. Vigneshwar Reddy, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated by the police. The Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their respective families and are law‑abiding citizens. They undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petitions.

4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is further submitted that if the Petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.

5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 6 in these cases. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 are women aged about 60 and 26 years, respectively. The de-facto complainant alleged that the Petitioners and some others pelted stones at the de-facto complainant and others, causing some injuries. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that L.W.1 suffered dislocation of a tooth, which is a grievous injury, pursuant to the pelting of stones by the group of accused. However, it is not clear as to which of the accused pelted the stones that caused the said injury. The allegations levelled against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus in nature.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 on pre-arrest bail with some stringent conditions.

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition Nos.8591 and 8585 of 2026 are allowed with the following stringent conditions:

i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required;

iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the Charge Sheet.

iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 05.10.2026 KMS

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 8591 and 8585 of 2026

Date: 05.10.2026 KMS

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead