Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/1787/2026 of Pami Reddy Viswanath Reddy 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: 1787/2026 Between: 1. PAMI REDDY VISWANATH REDDY, S/O P.VENKATA
APHC010116692026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. PAMI REDDY VISWANATH REDDY, S/O P.VENKATA REDDYAGE 50
YEARS,
OCC
CULTIVATIONR/O
GOOTY-ANANTHAPURAMU
VILLAGEPEDDAVADUGUM MANDALANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515405
2. AYYAVARIPALLI DEVANA GOVARDAN REDDY, S/O A.D.NARAYANA
REDDYAGE
YEARS,
OCC
CULTIVATIONR/O
GOOTY-
ANANTHAPURAMU
VILLAGEPEDDAVADUGURU
MANDALANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515405
3. PAMIREDDY
VISHNU
VARDAN
REDDY,
S/O
P.VISWANATH
REDDYAGE
YEARS,
OCC
EMPLOYEER/O
GOOTY-
ANANTHAPURAMU
VILLAGEPEDDAVADUGUM
MANDALANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515405
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
BY
PUBLIC
PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAMARAVATI
522237
...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 Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused 1, 2, 3 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr.No.10 of 2026 on the file of Peddavaduguru Police Station, Peddavaduguru, Anantapur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
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:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
(for brevity “BNSS”) by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Cr.No.10 of 2026 on the file of Peddavaduguru Police Station, Peddavaduguru, Anantapur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 337, 338 r/w Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that Accused No. 1 had grabbed a portion of the temple land, which had been donated under a registered gift deed dated 16.06.2008 (Document No. 1275 of 2008), by misusing his position in the Temple Committee. Accused No. 1 got his name mutated in the revenue records with respect to part of the temple land, in connivance with revenue officials. He also obtained loans by mortgaging the pattadar passbooks. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 stood as sureties for the loan obtained by Accused No.
1.
3. Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are plaintiffs in O.S.No.11 of 2026 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gooty. He would further submit that the petitioner herein filed the above civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants therein, who is the defacto complainant in this matter. The present case has been falsely lodged against the petitioners only after receiving the summons in the civil suit. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners are ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and prays to allow the petition.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation in this matter is at a crucial stage. She stated that the petitioners have obtained a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from a Cooperative Society by mortgaging the disputed property. The petitioner/A1 has also obtained the pattadar passbooks and title deed as if he is the owner of the property, whereas, in fact, the temple is the rightful owner. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further brought to the notice of this Court that Accused Nos. 1 and 3 have criminal antecedents, with two previous cases registered against them. She further submitted that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners and that, if they are released on anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence and hampering the ongoing investigation. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and the investigating is still at nascent stage. In view of the nature of the allegations made and the stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 18.03.2026 UPS
Date: 18.03.2026. UPS