Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Perni Venkata Ramaiah Alias Perni … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 July, 2026
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010328662026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 5256 and 5293 OF 2026
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 5256 OF 2026
Between:
1. SRI PERNI VENKATA RAMAIAH ALIAS PERNI NANI, S/O. PERNI
KRISHNA MURTHY,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,OCC EX-MLA AND
FORMER MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,R/O.
H.NO. 23-346, RAMANAIDUPETA,MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA
DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH EX MINISTER MLA
2. DEVINENI AVINASH, S/O. RAJASEKHAR NEHRU,AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS,OCC YSRC LEADRE ,R/O. D.NO. 48-4-16, ASHOK
GARDEN,GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA URBAN,KRISHNA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 520004.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AMARAVATI.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TADEPALLI POLICE
STATION,GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. TENALI MANIKYAM, W/O ANKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026
PENUMAKA VILLAGE,TADEPALLI MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5293 OF 2026
Between:
1. PANUGANTI CHAITANYA, S/O PULLA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS,R/O D.NO. 62-18-880, YADAVA STREET,IM CROSS ROAD,
OLD GUNTUR, 0PP. TEJA HIGH SCHOOLKOTHAPETA, GUNTUR,
GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. VANAMA BALA VAJRA BABU ALIAS DIAMOND BABU, A2S/O DASU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 7-17-369/14, MALLIKHARJUNA
PETA, 5 LANE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. AMBATI RAMBABU, A3,S/O LATE A.V.S.R. ANJANEYULU,AGED
ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O D.NO.4-20-28/21ST LANE, SIDDHARTHA
NAGAR, GUNTUR,GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. LEILA APPI REDDY, A6,S/O SAMBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS.FLAT NO. 203, GOLDEN TOWERS,KRISHNA NAGAR MAIN
ROAD, 0PP. JUTE MILLKRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
5. DONTHIREDDY SANKARA REDDY ALIAS DONTHIREDDY
VEMAREDDY, A7,S/O KOTIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,R/O
D.NO. 3-156, KOTTURU, TADEPALLI,GUNTUR DISTRICT
6. ANN MURTHY ALIAS NAVARATNALA NARAYANA, S/O LATE
KANNALU A8,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 2-3, D
POLAVARAMNEAR PANCHAYATI OFFICE, TUNI, KAKINADA
DISTRICT.
7. MEKA VENKATA SIVA REDDY ALIAS MEKA SIVAREDDY, A9,S/O
NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARSR/O D.NO. 6-5, NEAR
ELEMENTRY SCHOOLPENUMAKA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
8. NUNE UMA MAHESWARA REDDY, A10,S/O THIMMA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARSR/O D.NO. 4-36, PEDA PALAKALURU,
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026
GUNTURDISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH., REP
BYTADEPALLI POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. TENALI MANIKYAM, S/O. ANKAYYA,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.
PENUMAKA VILLAGE,TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SRIPATHI RAVI TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These two Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed
of by this common order, as the Petitioners in the two petitions are different,
but the crime registered against them is one and the same.
2. Crl.P.No.5256 of 2026 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C.,‟)/Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) seeking to
quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime
No.412 of 2026 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District registered for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 189(3), 115(2), 118(1), 131, 79,
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026
351(2) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the
BNS‟) and Section 3(1)(r). 3(1)(s). 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity „the SC and
ST (PoA) Act‟).
3. Crl.P.No.5293 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner Nos.1 to
8/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6, 7 to 10 in connection with Crime No.412 of 2026.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Senior
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. On 01.07.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“Heard Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri Sudharshan Reddy Jalla, learned counsel for the
Petitioners; Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri Sripathi Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the Petitioners;
and Sri M. Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor.
Issued notice to the unofficial Respondents in the two petitions.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners is permitted to take out
personal notice to the unofficial Respondents and file proof to that
effect.
The learned Public Prosecutor is directed to take out notice
contemplated under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act on the de-
facto complainant/victim.
Sri M. Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing
the grant any relief whatsoever relies on the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana 1 ,
wherein at paragraph Nos.9, 11 and 12 it is held as under:
“9. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order and
remit the matter to the High Court with a direction that let the
appellant before us (Defacto complainant) be heard and
thereafter the High Court may pass a fresh order.
11. However, we make it clear that till the High Court
decides afresh, no coercive steps be taken against the
respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively, before us.
12. We also take notice of the fact that infact the petition
before the High Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition1
2026 SCC Online SC 923
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court
should not have passed an order directing the Investigating
Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr. P.C.) because it
indirectly amounts to granting a relief which High Court could
have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of
the FIR is made out.”
The learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on a decision of the
Allahabad High Court in Shaukin v. State of U.P 2 , wherein at
paragraph No.6 it is held as under:
“6. We have further clarified that there may be cases
where the accused has not been named in the FIR or at the
time when the co-accused were picked up, for example in a
case of vehicle theft or recovery of other stolen goods, or
where the co-accused has been arrested while committing a
crime and he names another accused as also having
participated in the crime, whose custodial interrogation may
be necessary and the police officer is of the opinion that the
disclosure furnishes credible information or gives rise to a
reasonable suspicion for inferring that the accused whose
arrest is sought could also be involved, or there are chances
that such an accused would abscond or not respond to a
notice under section 41-A, Cr. P.C. to appear, looking to the
nature of the crime and the background of the particular
accused, these may be appropriate cases where immediate
arrests may be needed. Likewise where the accused whose
arrest is sought appears to be habitually engaged in
committing crimes or appears to be participating in some
organized crimes, these would also be circumstances where
it may be necessary to arrest such accused without delay.
Thus we see that no total embargo has been placed on
effecting arrests even in cases punishable upto 7 years
imprisonment.”
In another decision relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar3, wherein at paragraph No.7.1 it is
held as under:
“7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is
evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years
or which may extend to seven vears with or without fine,
cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his
satisfaction that such person had committed the offence
punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in
such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is
necessary to prevent such person from committing any
further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to
prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the
offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any
manner; or to prevent such person from making any
inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police
officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his
presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured.
These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on
facts.”
2
2012 SCC OnLine All 933
3
(2014) 8 SCC 273
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026
Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners/Accused in Crl.P.No.5293 of 2026 relied on the decision of
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau
of Investigation4, wherein at paragraph Nos.30 and 31 it is held as
under:
“30. While making an arrest under Section 35(6) of the
BNSS, 2023, after the stage of issuing a notice seeking
presence under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the
circumstances and factors that were in existence at the time
of issuing the said notice shall not be taken into
consideration by a police officer while making an arrest
subsequently. In other words, for effecting an arrest under
Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, it must be based upon
materials and factors which were not available with the
police officer at the time of issuing a notice under Section
35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the power of arrest
under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 is to be exercised
rather sparingly, only under circumstances as
aforementioned.
31. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that a notice under
Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an accused or any
individual concerned, qua an offence punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years, is the rule, while an arrest under
Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023,
is a clear exception.”
Admittedly, all the alleged offences are punishable with
imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. The prosecution
contends that as many as 23 criminal cases are pending against
Accused No.1, 36 cases are pending against Accused No.3, 11 cases
are pending against Accused No.5, 23 cases are pending against
Accused No.6, 7 cases are pending against Accused No.7, 2 cases
are pending against Accused No.9, and 5 cases are pending against
Accused No.10.
All the Petitioners/Accused are political leaders belonging to the
opposition party. Accused No.4 is a former Minister and MLA.
Accused No.5 is the President of the YSRCP, NTR District. Accused
No.3 is a former MLA, and Accused No.6 is a former MLC.
The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that Accused No.1 is
a rowdy-sheet holder.
The de-facto complainant claims that she belongs to SC-Madiga
community. She alleges that, while she was in Undavalli Village along
with some other women belonging to her community as well as other
communities, she received information that the individuals opposing
the development of the Amaravati Capital, i.e., the
Petitioners/Accused herein, had arrived in cars towards Penumaka
Village. It is further alleged that they raised slogans against the
Amaravati Capital Region farmers. When the de-facto complainant
and the others questioned the Petitioners/Accused, they allegedly
threatened her with dire consequences and abused her in filthy
language by referring to her caste. She further alleges that one
person by name Rayapudi Kiranbabu, who belongs to SC-Mala
4
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026
community, humiliated and abused her by taking the name of her
caste.
As mentioned supra, all the Petitioners belong to the opposite
political party and hold different positions therein. None of the
Petitioners belongs to Penumaka Village, where the de-facto
complainant resides.
The Hon‟ble Apex Court in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh5, wherein at paragraph No.27 it is held as under:
“To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have
made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides
but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail
overlooking the other prima facie materials on record.
Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant
considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail.
The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly,
while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two
groups of rival political parties are at war which may
ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal
prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political
bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political
vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory
bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of
political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record
constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is
only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that
the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may
bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration
for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail.
The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into
should be attributed to political bias or vendetta.”
In view of the fact that all the offences are punishable below seven
years. The investigating officer is directed not to arrest the Petitioners
until further order, but the Petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as instructed by the Investigating Officer in
writing and cooperate with the investigation. The Investigating Officer
shall proceed with further investigation.
List on 08.07.2026 for hearing of the de-facto complainant.”
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Senior Counsel
for the Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in
unison submit that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for
less than seven (07) years. The Petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the
benefit under Section 35(3) of „the BNSS.,‟ in view of the judgments of the
5
2025 SCC Online SC 1157
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026
Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar6 and Md.Asfak Alam
v. the State of Jharkhand 7 . The submissions appear to be sound,
reasonable and convincing.
7. As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crl.P.No.5256 of 2026 and the
Petitioner Nos.1 to 8/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6, 7 to 10 in Crl.P.No.5293 of
2026 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. The
order dated 01.07.2026 is modified to that effect by recalling the order of not
to take coercive steps against the Petitioners.
8. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of
Telangana, Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Criminal)
Diary No.953 of 2026), on dated 19.01.2026 has held as follows:
“We also take notice of the fact that the petition before the High
Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition where quashing of the FIR is
prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing
the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, because it indirectly amounts to granting a
relief which the High Court could have considered only if a prima facie
case for quashing of the FIR is made out.”
9. Further, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation8, wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held as
under:
33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as
follows:
6
(2014) 8 SCC 273
7
(2023) 8 SCC 632
8
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026a. An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which
facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in the form of
collection of evidence and, therefore, shall not be termed as
mandatory.
b. Consequently, the police officer shall ask himself the question
as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not, before undertaking
the said exercise.
c. For effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of
the BNSS, 2023 along with any one of the conditions mentioned in
Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 2023 must be in existence.
d. A notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an accused
or any individual concerned, qua offences punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years, is the rule.
e. Even if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are
available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section
35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken,
unless it absolutely warranted.
f. Power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b)
of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued under Section
35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an
exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and
slow in exercising the said power.
10. Furthermore, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Arnesh Kumar supra, wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at
Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced
herein below:-
11. Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do
not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize
detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have
observed above, we give the following direction:
a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to
automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is
registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest
under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C.‟);
b) All police officers be provided with a check list containing
specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish
the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while
forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further
detention;
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026
d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall
peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid
and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize
detention;
e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the
Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the
case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded
in writing;
f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be
served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of
the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of
the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from
rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action,
he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be
instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by
the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental
action by the appropriate High Court.
12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply
to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where
offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less
than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with
or without fine.
11. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Md.Asfak Alam supra, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the
case of Arnesh Kumar.
12. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil,
Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam, the investigating officer is under legal
obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure
prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ (now Sections 35 and
35(3) of „the B.N.S.S.,‟ 2023). The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 10 in Crime
No.412 of 2026 are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing
investigation.
11
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.2026
13. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of directing the
Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of „the BNSS‟/41-A of „the
Cr.P.C.,‟ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Satender
Kumar Antil, Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. If it is noticed in the
course of investigation that the Petitioners have committed any offence which
is punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer
is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 08.07.2026
KMS
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
12
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.Nos.5256 and 5293 of 2026
Dated 08.07.202664
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAOCRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5256 and 5693 of 2026
Date: 08.07.2026
KMS
