Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/2071/2026 of Janaiah Duddugola Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 17 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2071/2026 Between: 1. JANAIAH DUDDUGOLA, S/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 31
APHC010135672026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2071/2026
Between:
1. JANAIAH DUDDUGOLA, S/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 31 YEARS,R/O.
DOOR NO. 2-17, VANIKUNTA VILLAGEIPURU MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
Rep.
by
its
Public
Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati.Through SHO
Narasaraopet I-Town Police station
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to grant him anticipatory bail by directing his enlargement on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit in the event of his arrest in the above said FIR No.38/2026 of Narasaraopet I Town Police Station, Palnadu District, Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2071/2026
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 Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.38 of 2026 of Narsaraopet I Town Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 119(1), 75(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNS”).
2. Heard Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, on 05.03.2026 at about 08:00 a.m., lodged a report stating that she is working as an Office Subordinate in Narasaraopet Court and, due to family problems, has been living separately with her children. During that time, she came into contact with the accused, who gained her confidence and promised that if she obtained loans in her name, he would repay the EMIs. Believing the same, she obtained a loan of Rs.7,00,000/-, which the accused allegedly utilized, and thereafter another sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the accused took her gold earrings, educational certificates, and certain agricultural documents. Subsequently, he failed to repay the loan amounts and, when questioned, allegedly abused and threatened to kill her and her children. It is also alleged that the accused forcibly took her in a car, assaulted her, and attempted to outrage her modesty.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the Sarpanch of his village and a person of standing. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in a live-in relationship for the past five years, and due to disputes between them, the present complaint has been lodged with false allegations.
5. Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that investigation is pending. It is further submitted that the present petition is preferred directly before this Court without approaching the concerned jurisdictional District Court.
6. A perusal of the material on record would show that the petitioner has approached this Court directly without availing the remedy before the jurisdictional Court and without demonstrating any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting such direct approach. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Petition.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Jurisdictional Court and move an appropriate application seeking anticipatory bail.
________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 18.03.2026 ARB
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2071 of 2026
Date: 18.03.2026
ARB