Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/7991/2026 of Dantuluri Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 4 October 2026
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 NO: 7991/2026 Between: 1. DANTULURI SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. RAM MOHAN RAJU,AGED 40 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.
APHC010475402026
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 NO: 7991/2026
Between:
1. DANTULURI
SATYANARAYANA
RAJU,
S/O.
RAM
MOHAN
RAJU,AGED 40 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.31-45- 12/22,FLAT NO.504, DWARAKA NIVAS APARTMENT,NEAR GLORIA
SCHOOL,
KURMANNAPALEM,
DUVVADA,VISAKHAPATNAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITSPUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN 522237THROUGH S.H.O., DUVVADA POLICE STATION,VISAKHAPATNAM COMMISSIONERATE
2. KURAPATI
PUSHPA
KUMARI,
W/O.
KURAPATI
NARASIMHA
REDDY,AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. F.NO.502, BLOCK-C,SRI BALAJI
ENCLAVE,
BOLLARAM
ROAD,
MIYAPUR,K.V.
RANGAREDDY
DISTRICT - 500 049, HYDERABAD,TELANGANA STATE.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. PAMPANA PADMAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. KOPPULA SARITA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.276 of 2026 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section Man Missing Person.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned legal aid counsel for the Respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. Mr.Pampana Padmakar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
5. Ms. K.Sarita, learned legal aid counsel for the Respondent No.2 argued on the same lines as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/suspect is that he was responsible for the missing of the husband of Respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that an I.P. was filed against Respondent No.2, showing her as Respondent No.5, and her husband as Respondent No.11, at the same address. It is submitted that notice was served on Respondent No.11 in the above-mentioned I.P. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioner is not yet shown as an accused. There is no apprehension that the Petitioner would be arrested.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioner to renew his application, as and when required, after he is arraigned as an accused and there is an apprehension of his arrest.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 05.10.2026 PRA
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7991 of 2026
Date: 05.10.2026 PRA