High CourtsSingle Bench

Nagireddy Rajakumari, W/O Ramana Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 20 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 AP CK 0588

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 149, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66 · Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulations) Act, 1957 — Section 21 · Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Conservation Rules, 1966 — Rule 26
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No: 3251 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 476 words

Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J

1.

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS'), by the Petitioner / Accused No.20 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.45 of 2022 of Singarayakonda Police Station, Prakasham District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.'), Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'the IT Act'), Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations)Act, 1957 (for short'the MMDR Act') and Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Conservation Rules, 1966.

2.

Heard Sri Karthik Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. Learned counsel would further submit that this Court had already granted anticipatory to Accused No.22. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein is also on the same footing. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

4.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

5.

Having regard to the submissions made and on considering the material on record, this Court finds that the Petitioner / Accused No.20 is similarly placed to Accused No.22, who has already been granted anticipatory bail. No distinguishing circumstances are brought to the notice of this Court to take a different view. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, subject to conditions.

6.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

(i) In the event of his arrest, the Petitioner/Accused No.20 shall be enlarged on bail, on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

(ii) The Petitioner/Accused No.20 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required;

(iii) The Petitioner/Accused No.20 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) The Petitioner/Accused No.20 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

(v) The Petitioner/Accused No.20 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

(vi) The Petitioner/Accused No.20 shall surrender her passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If she claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.