SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2407

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
DINESH KUMAR JAIN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRLRC 652/2025



APHC010283532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 652/2025 Between:

1. D INESH KUMAR JAIN, S/O. MANGILAL JAIN, PROPRIETOR, SAI RAJENDRA DIAMONDS, GSTIN/UIN 37HGPPD4399P1ZW JAIN, AGED 57 YEARS. RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 33-1-18/6, TOWN HALL ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI.

2. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARAYANAVANAM POLICE STATION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

3. T HE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, NARAYANAVANAM BRANCH, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517581.

4. T HE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAJAHMUNDRY BRANCH (BRANCH CODE.00904), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533101. RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 17.07.2025 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2025 IN CRL.R.C.NO.652 OF 2025.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order, dated

17.03.2025 in CrI.M.P. No. 266 of 2025 in Cr. No. 67 of 2024, on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-J.F.C.M., Puttur and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the authorities to defreeze my bank account as an interim relief and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant LEAVE to Implead (i) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Narayanavanam Branch, and(ii) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rajahmundry Branch as Respondents 3 and 4 in the above Criminal Revision Case; and Pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Implead (i) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Narayanavanam Branch, and (ii) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rajahmundry Branch as Respondents 3 and 4 in the above Criminal Revision Case and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VENKATA NARAYANA RAO VEDULA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 652/2025

JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur in Crl.M.P.No.266 of

2025 in Cr.No.67 of 2024 of Narayanavanam P.S.

2. Heard Mr.Venkata Narayana Rao Vedula, learned counsel for the Petitioner/A-2, Mr.D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State is in attendance.

3. The Police have registered a case in Cr.No.67 of 2024 of Narayanavanam P.S., for the offence under Section 318 of B.N.S., on the complaint of one T.Yuvaraju. The Petitioner herein is A-2, whose bank account has been freezed in connection with the above crime. The Petitioner herein filed a petition seeking to defreeze the Petitioner’s Bank Account for interim custody in Crl.M.P.No.266 of 2025, wherein the learned Judge dismissed the said petition vide Order dated 17.03.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the he freezing of the Petitioner’s bank account, which is a business account, has caused severe prejudice and irreparable loss to the Petitioner’s ongoing business operations. It is conten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top