VENNA VIJAYA CHAKRAVATHI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of B.N.S.S for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner/accused No.1 in connection with the Crime No.144 of 2025 on the file of the Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada District for the offences punishable under Sec. 109 (1), 3 (5) of BNS.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that there is a civil dispute between the Complainat and one Talloju Krishnaveni. It is stated that on 26/4/2025 at 01.00 hrs, when the de-facto complainant was in his fields and was harvesting the paddy, the petitioner along with other accused had illegally trespassed into the land and obstructed the de-facto complainant in harvesting the crop and attacked the de-facto complainant, in the result the de-facto complainant has sustained injuries. Thus the subject FIR is lodged against the petitioner and other arraying the petitioner as accused A-1.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is a practicing advocate. Against the de-facto Complainant one Talloju Krishnaveni filed civil suit in O.S.No.5 of 2021 for declaration of title and delivery of possession. The suit was decreed on 31/7/2024, in connection with the same Execution Petition in E.P.No. 5 of 2025 was filed against the de-facto complaint for delivery of possession. In the said E.P. warrant was executed. In connection with the same an endorsement was made in favour of the petitioner to execute the warrant with the help of the Court Ameen and Mandal Surveyor. In the said process, the petitioner along with the plaintiff went to the subject property and handed over the warrant to the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the de-facto complainant took the warrant and tore the same and in the process a galata took place between the petitioner. Thus, complainant is stated to have bore a grudge against the petitioner and lodged the present complainant with false allegations. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged incident and he was only discharging the duties assigned to him in execution of warrant, further would submit that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation in all respects.