APHC010111992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: D Ranganadham and Others The State Of Ap Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following 1. This Criminal Petition, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) petitioners/A.1 & 3 to 6, seeking regular of 2024 of Nagari Urban Police Station, 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner offences punishable under Section 3 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that 17.12.2024, at around 11:30 AM, the complainant filed a complaint about an 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2345/2025 D Ranganadham and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR following ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 480 & 483 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), is filed on behalf of the A.1 & 3 to 6, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District. A case has been registered against the petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Section 329(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). e prosecution's case, in brief, is that the prosecution’s case is that on 17.12.2024, at around 11:30 AM, the complainant filed a complaint about an IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT of the Bharatiya , is filed on behalf of the Crime No.198 /accused for the 29(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5), he prosecution’s case is that on 17.12.2024, at around 11:30 AM, the complainant filed a complaint about an 2 incident that occurred on 14.12.2024 at approximately 3:30 PM in the complainant’s village. According to the complaint, while the complainant’s brother-in-law was leveling a house site, the accused (A1 to A7) quarrelled with him and assaulted him with sticks, causing injuries. Ravi was admitted to the hospital for his injuries and later returned home. On 15.12.2024, at around 3:30 AM, A1 to A7 appeared in front of the complainant’s house, started a quarrel, and assaulted him with sticks and stones. When his wife, father and mother-in-law intervened to rescue, the accused were assaulted them with sticks and stones. Neighbors arrived and rescued the family from the accused. During the assault, the complainant sustained a bleeding head injury and multiple bruises. His wife, Manimegalai, suffered a bleeding head injury, a bruise on her left elbow, and an internal neck injury. His father sustained severe internal injuries to his right leg and chest, and his mother-in-law had a bleeding head injury. The victims were taken to Nagari Government Hospital for treatment, and based on the doctor's advice, the complainant’s father was shifted to SVRR Hospital in Tirupati for further care. The incident stemmed from a dispute over a pathway to nearby lands, leading to the filing of the FIR. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case, stemming from a dispute over the right of way on a piece of land; they highlight the delays in filing the complaint, 68 hours after the first incident and 56 hours after the second incident, suggesting prior deliberation to implicate all accused; the injuries to the victims are minor, and the deceased, a chronic diabetic, likely died from septic shock, not due to any external injuries, as confirmed by the postmortem report; the petitioners voluntarily surrendered to the police, but the police falsely recorded their arrest at 9:30 AM on 28.2.2025; the petitioners i.e., all the male family members, are in judicial custody except A2 and A7; the petitioners are involved in critical farming operations, and their absence could severely affect crop yields; they have no criminal record and are willing to cooperate with the investigation, seeking bail on these grounds. 3 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner, asserting that serious allegations are levied against the petitioners; the investigation is incomplete, and if released, the petitioners may tamper with evidence and fail to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the prosecution prays for the dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the Petition and the report. 7. In Mahipal V. Rajesh1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court, while considering an application for bail, to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime. 8. In Masroor V. State of U.P.2, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 13. … Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. 9. In P. Chidambaram v. CBI3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that: 21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well- settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 2 (2009) 14 SCC 286 3(2020) 13 SCC 337 4 (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. [Vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] .] 10. In Anil Kumar Yadav V. State (NCT of Delhi)4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has spelt out some of the significant considerations which must be placed in the balance in deciding whether to grant bail: 17. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are : (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. 11. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. 12. After careful reading of the material, this Court finds that the Prosecution has placed prima facie material in support of the charge. The grant of bail requires the consideration of various factors which ultimately depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case before the Court. There is no strait jacket formula which can be prescribed as to what the relevant factors would be. 4(2018) 12 SCC 129 5 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause of death of the deceased was septic shock. It is further argued that the deceased was a known chronic diabetic patient, and as such, the treating physician might have advised the amputation of the deceased's right leg; the postmortem certificate issued by the Department of Forensic Medicine at S.V. Medical College indicates that the deceased sustained ante mortem injuries, including multiple contusions on the left upper limb and the back side of the right forearm. The petitioner’s counsel further contends that however, the postmortem report did not indicate any additional injuries beyond the contusions, and the postmortem doctor found no further trauma or significant injuries to suggest any other contributing factors to the cause of death. 14. At this juncture, it is important to highlight that the report lodged by defacto complainant explicitly notes that the deceased sustained injuries to the right leg during the incident in question. However, due to the subsequent amputation of the leg, it is not possible to visually observe or examine these injuries. Consequently, at this stage, it cannot be prima facie stated that the version presented in the report is inaccurate or erroneous. 15. Given the ongoing investigation, it remains difficult to conclude that the deceased did not suffer injuries to his legs, or that the amputation of the leg was not a result of those injuries sustained during the incident. Therefore, at this stage of investigation, the Court is not prepared to accept that the deceased's death did not result from the injuries incurred in the incident. 16. Apart from the gravity and magnitude of the instances involved in this case that inhibit the grant of bail to the petitioners, the possibility of the prosecution case getting affected once the petitioners are released on bail cannot be ruled out. I don’t express anything further on merits and going into detail as any further observation on merits may affect the prosecution case as well as the defence case. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in juxtaposition with the judgments referred to above, suffice it to say that 6 the facts and circumstances of the case and looking at the nature of serious allegations I don’t think that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners/ A.1 & 3 to A.6. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 18. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 07.04.2025 SAK 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2345 of 2025 Date: 07.04.2025 SAK