lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYFIVE #a :PRESENT: €' 'J ? THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3018 OF 2025 Between : 1. Lekala Demudu Naidu, s/o. Ramu, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Ramajogipalem, Chowdavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District. 2. Lekala ParvathI', W/o. Ramu, Aged about 60 years, R/o. Ramajogipalem, Chowdavaram MandaI, Anakapalli District. ... Petitioners/Accused-3 & 6 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its pubII-C Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ... Respondent/complainant petition under sectI-OnS 482 of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the criminal petition, the Hl'gh Court may be pleased to enlarge the petl-tioners on ba" in the event of theI-r arrest in FIF` No.362 of 2024 on the file of chodavaram police Station, Anakapalli DistrI®Ct in the interest ofJ'uStiCe. The pe{itI-On coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and the HI-gh Court orders dated o2.04.2025, o9.04.2025, 29.04.2025 & 21.07.2025 made hereI-n and upon hearI'ng the arguments of Sri RAJA REDDY KONETI, Advocate for the petit]-oners and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the court made the following,- - -i ffsedae APHCO10141682025 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION 'NO: 3018/2025 Betwee n : Lekala Demudu Naidu and Others AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETl [3521] H.PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) u.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 'Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sahhita, 2023 (for brevity lthe BNSSJ)by the petitioners/A3 and A6 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.362 of 2024 of chodavaram police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1),118(1), 329(3), 324(4), 78, 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short lthe BNS). 4 _ 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that due to the previous land dI-SPu{eS between the accused and defacto complainant,on 16.12.2024,between 12.30 hours and 13.00 hours, at Bonda Vaari Culvert, Ramajogipalem village, Chodavaram MandaI,the accused attacked the defacto complainant and his family m'embers with knives, sticks, and sickles. The accused attempted to kill the de facto complainant and his family. The de facto complainant was stabbed on the back and head with a knife, resulting in four deep cuts, and-his hands were severely beaten with sticks. His wife was also stabbed on her forehead, her clothes were torn, and she was groped. The de facto complainantJs son was brutally hit on the head. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri Rajareddy Koneti, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had not committed any offence ;nd they were falsely implicated in this caseI'The petitioners are sole bread winners of their family; they are ready to abide by any condI-lion tO be imposed by this COurf,- anc! it is urged to grant the pre-arrest baj[. 5. Percor,fra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the petitioners had indulged in the offence highhandedly, there is prima-facie case is made out against the Petitioners; some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not completed; I-i the PetI-{iOnerS are enlarged on bail, they would not be '.-_,- _J. .fry q` q. avaI-Iable for the investigation and they would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petI-lion. She further submitted that there are land disputes between the petI'tI-OnerS and the defacto complainant, and two I cases registered as Crime Nos.75 and 241 of 2024 of Chodavaram Poll-Ce Station, AnakapaIIi District agaI'nSt the Pe{itidnerS for the OffenCeS under Sectl'ons 324, 323 and 506 of the Indian penal code [the IPC', in connection with the said disputes| 6. As seen from the First lnformatI-On Report lodged by the defacto complainant, allegations were made agal-nst all the accused, stating that they had formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and sticks, and assaulted the defacto complainant. However, on perusal of the statement of .the defacto complainant as L.W.1, recorded under section 161 of fthe Cr.P.C.I Section 180 of fthe BNSSJ, she made specific allegations only against i accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. With regard to the petI-tiOnerS/A3 and A6, L.W.1/defacto complainant attributed specific overt acts against A3, stall-ng that he bet the victim/defacto complainant/L.W.lan the head with a knife, as a --- - _` result of which, the defacto complainant suffered a severe head injury. The Medical Officer at CHC, Chodavaram, Anakapalli District, issued a wound certifl'cate certifying that L.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the request of petitioner No.1/Accused No.3 I-S not found convincing or -reasonable. Accordingly, the petition against petitioner Nd.1/accused No.3 is dismissed as he is not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail, \." _ •_ . 7. However, considering the nature and gravity of allegations against leveled against the petitI-Oner No.2/Accused No.6, who is a 60-year-old woman, and in the absence of any specific overt act attrI'buted against her other than the allegation that she was part of the unlawful assembly, this Court deems it appropriate and reasonable to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.2/Accused No.6. 8. I In the result, the crimI'nal Petition iS Partly allowed dismissing the petition agaI'nSt the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.3 while granting pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.2/Accused No.6, subject to the following stringent condI'tiOnS: a) ln the event of arrest of the petitioner No.2/A6, the petitioner No.2/A6 Shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the sail-SfaCtiOn Of the arresting police officI'alS; b) The petitI-Oner No.2/A6 shall make herself available for investI|gatiOn aS and When required; c) The petitioner No.2/A6 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promI'Se tO the Prosecution Witnesses; d) The petitioner No.2/A6 shall appear before the station House Officer concerned once in a week I-.e., On every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and o5.00 p.mu till filing of the charge sheet. e) The petitioner No.2/A6 shall not leave the state of A.P. limits without the express permission from the station House Officer concerned. <.*rf 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. SD/-G.HELANAIDUI ASSISTANT REGISTRA SECTION //TRUE COPY// ::ffiR: R To, 1. The Station House Officer, Chodavaram police Stall-on, AnakapaIIi District 2. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [opuc] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofAP [OUT] 4. One spare copy FEffE5FfZ3fgff€ grm=to q' HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED-.24.07.2025- BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3018 of 2025 PARTYLY ALLOWED i l\\