Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/2742/2026 of Matta Nani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 14 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2742/2026 Between: 1. MATTA NANI, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO. AGED ABOUT
APHC010632322025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2742/2026
Between:
1. MATTA NANI, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO. AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-37, GOWDAPETA, PERAVARAM VILLAGE
ATHREYAPURAM MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM SUBBU, S/O. SREENU,AGED ABOUT
19 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-149, GOWDAPETA, PERAVARAM VILLAGE, ATHREYAPURAM MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
3. MATTA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. CHINNA SATYAM, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-37, GOWDAPETA, PERAVARAM
VILLAGE, ATHREYAPURAM MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. BORRA BHARGAVA TEJA, S/O. VENKANNA AGED ABOUT 19
YEARS, R/O. D.N0.2-93A, GOWDAPETA, PERAVARAM VILLAGE, ATHREYAPURAM MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. MATTA
VENKATA
PHANINDRA
ALIAS
PHANINDRA,
S/O.SREENU,AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
R/O.D.NO.
1-04-37,
CHINNAREDDY
COLONY,
BOWENPALLY,
TIRUMALAGIRI,
SECUNDERABAD.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
REP.
BY
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH
COURT
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT
AMARAVATHI
2. THALLA GANESH, S/O. NAGESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-202, SC- COLONY, PERAVARAM VILLAGE, ATREYAPURAM MANDAL, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. 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 instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2, 3, 7, 14 & 16, in connection with Crime No.248 of 2024 on the file of Atreyapuram Police Station, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District which is registered for the offences under Sections 118(1), 109(1), 351(2) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners are innocents of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the statements of the witnesses prima facie reveal that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that this is a counter case to the case in Crime No.249 of 2024 and the Accused therein were released on bail. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.
3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners with regard to the commission of the alleged offences.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and upon perusal of the material available on record, a prima facie reading of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses discloses specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioners in relation to the alleged offences. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct mini trial however, the material on record indicates their involvement, which requires thorough investigation. The contention that the present case is a counter case to Crime No.249 of 2024 and that the Accused therein were granted bail cannot be a ground to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners, at this stage.
5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The Petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the concerned Court and move regular bail application. On filing such application, the learned Judge may pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:15.04.2026 Dinesh
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2742 of 2026
DATE:15.04.2026
Dinesh