KUSETTY MAHESH KUMAR vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — CRLP /2465/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 07th April 2026.
CNR: APHC010163962026
Filing Number
CRLP /3207/2026
Filing Date
30-03-2026
Registration No
CRLP /2465/2026
Registration Date
30-03-2026
Judge
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Coram
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRLP ( 41 )
Sub-Category
U/s.482 BNSS Anticipatory Bail(CRL.4A-N) ( 148 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL Section
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KUSETTY MAHESH KUMAR
Adv. VARADAM SAI LIKHITH
Kusetty Mani Kumar,
Respondent(s)
The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Hearing History
Judge: VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
INTERLOCUTORY ( ANTICIPATORY BAILS)
INTERLOCUTORY ( ANTICIPATORY BAILS)
INTERLOCUTORY ( ANTICIPATORY BAILS)
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | INTERLOCUTORY ( ANTICIPATORY BAILS) | |
| 07-04-2026 | INTERLOCUTORY ( ANTICIPATORY BAILS) | |
| 06-04-2026 | INTERLOCUTORY ( ANTICIPATORY BAILS) |
Orders
Court Summary The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the pre-arrest bail petition filed by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in an online betting fraud case involving the Radhe Exchange App (R777). The court found that all offences, including those under the Indian Arms Act, are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, but rejected the bail request as the knives were seized from Accused No. 1's house, not the petitioners'. The court directed police to follow proper procedures under BNSS Section 35(3) and allowed petitioners counsel accompaniment during police notices. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the pre-arrest bail petition filed by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in an online betting fraud case involving the Radhe Exchange App (R777). The court found that all offences, including those under the Indian Arms Act, are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, but rejected the bail request as the knives were seized from Accused No. 1's house, not the petitioners'. The court directed police to follow proper procedures under BNSS Section 35(3) and allowed petitioners counsel accompaniment during police notices. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts