Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dasari Nagabhusanam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 March, 2026
APHC010131572026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2185/2026
Between:
1. DASARI NAGABHUSANAM, S/O. DASARI SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.170, HOUSE NO. 5-222/4,
KRISHNA NAGAR COLONY, MOULALI, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT,
TELENGANA STATE.
2. MANTRIPRAGADA JAYASRI, (A-3), W/O. M. VENKATARAMANA
MOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. D. NO-3-5-125/7,
KRISHNA NAGAR, NFC BUILDING. MEERPET, MOULALI,
SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (S.H.O., Chandragiri,U. P.S.)
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at
Amaravati.
...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 direct the Station House
Officer, Chandragiri UP.S., Tirupati District to enlarge the petitioners/Al & A.3
on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the Cr. No. 22 of 2026 on the
file of Chandragiri UP.S., Tirupati District, and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
2
1. K KRANTI CHAITANYA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2185/2025
ORDER :
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection
with Cr. No. 22 of 2026 on the file of Chandragiri UP.S., Tirupati District,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465,
467, 468, 471, 120 (b), 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri K.Kranti Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the
State. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that notice is served
on the defacto complainant through police and received instructions to submit
her arguments.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Smt.
Meena Vijay, being the owner of the disputed land, executed a General Power
of Attorney in favour of A1. A1, in collusion with A2, manipulated and
fraudulently registered the document, and later got it validated through illegal
means despite its earlier rejection. Using the said document, A1 unlawfully
transferred the land to A3, who subsequently sold it to A4, causing wrongful
loss to the complainant. The accused acted in conspiracy to cheat the
complainant, and when she later visited the land, A1 threatened her with dire
consequences to prevent her from entering the property.
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this is purely a
civil dispute between the Accused No.1 and the defacto complainant. Learned
counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the defacto complainant in
this matter, filed a civil suit in O.S.No.76 of 2019, seeking cancellation of the
sale deed executed by Accused No.1 in favour of Accused No.2 by virtue of
registered General Power of Attorney executed by the defacto complainant in
favour of the Accused No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that the
petitioner No.1 i.e., Accused No.1, filed counter claim seeking specific
performance regarding ‘B’ and ‘C’ plaint schedule property against the defacto
complainant. Learned counsel would further submit that the defacto
complainant executed registered sale deed in favour of the 3rd parties on
30.01.2023 pending the civil suit. Accused No.1 got impleaded the 3rd parties
who purchased the ‘B’ and ‘C’ plaint schedule property in O.S.No.76 of 2019.
Learned counsel would further submit that even as per the contents of the
complaint submitted by the defacto complainant in the present case, fresh
allegation against the accused is that on 29.01.2026 when she has visited the
schedule property, she received threatening call from the accused No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the defacto
complainant herein filed an application in the civil suit O.S.No.76 of 2019,
seeking rejection of the counter claim filed by the accused No.1 in the said
suit. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner No.2/accused
No.3 herein purchased the property from the accused No.2 under registered
sale deed. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition by imposing any
5
conditions since the defacto complainant wanted to colour the transaction
which is purely civil in nature as a criminal case.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition
and would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage and as per the
contents of the complaint, the petitioners herein in collusion with the other
accused executed registered sale deeds by creating forged documents and
also threatened the complainant with dire consequences.
6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material
placed on record, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, this case is emanated from the civil disputes between the Accused
No.1 and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant filed a civil suit for
cancellation of sale deed executed by the accused No.1 in favour of the
accused No.2. Accused No.1 has filed a counter claim in the very same suit
seeking specific performance of agreement said to have been executed by the
defacto complainant. During the pendency of the civil suit, the defacto
complainant has executed some sale deed against the third parties and they
are also impleaded in the said suit. The fresh allegation now attributed against
the petitioners is that when the defacto complainant received a call from some
unknown number, she has called accused No1 and he threatened her with
dire consequences. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:
6
i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, shall appear before the
concerned Magistrate Court within a period of one (1) week
from the date of this order and shall furnish personal bonds
for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two
sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said
Court;
ii. On release, the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, shall
appear before the Station House Officer concerned, once in a
week i.e., on every Saturday, between 10:00 AM and 05:00
PM, till filing of charge sheet.
iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, shall make themselves
available for investigation as and when required and shall
cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further
investigation.
iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, shall not cause any
threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;
v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, shall surrender their
passports, if any, to the Court concerned. If they claim that
they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to
that effect to the Court concerned.
vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, shall not leave the
country, without express permission from the concerned
Court.
7. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution
is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
7
8. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for
the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be construed as
opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
Date: 31.03.2026.
UPS
8
35
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2185/2025
Dt: 31.03.2026
UPS