lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Jr, (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: LEE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.I 3308 OF 2025 Betwee n : 1. Neelam Ediga Udaya Jyothi, w/o, N.E. Jayaprakash Narayana @ prakash Goud, Aged 57 years, occ.I ..., R/o.H.No.1-81, Chunchu yerragudi village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool Dl'strict, Andhra pradesh, 2. Neelam EdI'ga Sunny Goud @ Maneesh Goud, S/o. N.E. Jayaprakash Narayana @ prakash Goud, Aged 36 years, occ: ..., R/o. H.No.1-81, chunchu yerragudi village, KrI-Shnagirl' Mandal, KurnooI Dl'strict, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Neelam Ediga Dl'nesh Goud, W/o. N.E. Raghavendra Goud, Aged 22 years, occ: ..., R/o. H.No.1-81, Chunchu yerragudl' village, Krishnagjri MandaI, Kurnool District, Andhra pradesh I..PETITIONERS/A-2, 3 & 12. AND 1. The State ofAndhra pradesh, Rep. by I-ts publl'c prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT. EE 2. Boya Bala Venkataramudu, S/o. Late Boya Talari Ramudu, Aged 54 years, Chunchu Yerragudi Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool Dl'strict, Andhra Pradesh, Cell 9491524073. ...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTOCOMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the s.H.O. of Krishangiri Police Station, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, to release the Petitioner on Bail in the event of hl-s arrest in connection with in crime No. 58 of 2024 of Krishnagiri Police Station, KurnooI DistrI-Ct, Andhra Pradesh, in the interest of justice. The petition coming on for hearing, upon, perusing the petitI'On and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI G VENKATA SUBBA RAJU Advocate for the petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1, and the Court made the following ORDER: [3369] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3308/2025 Between : Neelam Ediga Udaya Jyothi and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and .I.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. G VENKATA SUBBA RAJU counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 1. The Criminal Pet-ltion, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short, lBNSS') is filed on behalf Of the pet-ltioners/A.2, A.3 and A.12 to grant antiCiPatOry bail in COnneCtiOn With crime No.58 of 2024 of Krishnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District. 2| A case has been registered against the Petitioner here'ln and Others for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 307, 447, 427 r/w 149 of Indian penal Code,1860 (for short, IIPC'). 3, The Prosecution's case, in brief, iS that On 15.05.2024 at approximately 11',30 hrs the petitioners and other accused, armed With deadly Weapons, ` . I / 2 ` trespassed onto the defacto complalnant's property wlth two JCBs and esi5 damaged the slabs and l'ron shed and assaultlng the defacto complalnant and I, other wl'th the ,Intent to k,'', causlng bleedlng lnJurles The ,Injured were hospltall'zed at the Government hospltal, veldurthy for treatment Based on the complalnt of the defacto complalnant, the present crlme was lnltlally regl'stered agaI'nSt accused Nos 1 to 7, wI-th accused Nos.8 to 12 later added. 4. Learned counsel for the petl-tI'Oners contends that the petjtl'oners have been falsely l'mpll'cated due to poljtl'cal rl'valry I-n the vl'Ilage,I the ,-ncjdent oD:OCpu:rneyd, :haed:n:h+en ade=nct^o. _c:_=pI=-Inant and ;IS |l;on`::e::laegn==r:nde s:nhC:adeu:: property, lead,'ng to a mlnor altercatlon and resultlng ln both parties sustal'nlng simple l'njurl'es, the defacto complalnant and others were dl'scharged from the hospl'tal shortly after the l'ncldent and resumed regular work He further contends that A.1 and others were granted regular ball by the learned I Addltjonal sess,ons Judge, Kurnool, In CrlMPNo822 of 2024 on o8 06 2024. The petltI'Oners sought antl'cl'patory ba" In Crl.M P Nos 852 of 2024 and 107 of 2024, whl-ch were dl'sml'ssed on 28 06 2024 and o5 08 2024 due to the nature of the offence and pendlng I'nVeStlgatlon. However, wlth most of the l'nvestllgatjon completed and a" prosecutlon wI-tnesses, who are related to the defacto complal'nant, are examined, the petl-t,-oners asserts there is no r`'sk of w'ltness tamper'Ing. Thereto;=`:I:':=:;Ga==:Il:Oantoe= ba::. 5. on the other hand, the learned Assistant publl'c Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondenvstate, opposes the grant of antjc,-patory ba" on the ground that the I-nvestl-gatl|on Its Stl'll pendl-ng. 6. I have heard both sl'des. Learned counsel on both sides refterated thel'r subml'ssl-ons on par wlth the contentI'OnS Presented ln the petl'tlon as we" as in the Report. consequently, the contentI'OnS Presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. E/ <-`2~ ..> #trS. 7. In Mah,Ipa/ V. Ra/'esh7,.the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary r, for the Court, whI-le considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a pr,'ma fac,'e or reasonable ground to bell-eve that the accused has comml'tted the crime. It is settled law that when granting bail, a detal'led examinatI'On Of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the case's merl'ts has not to be undertaken. That dI'd not mean that whilst granting bail, some reasons for prima facl'e concluding why bail was being granted did not have to be indl-cated 8. It is settled law that while considerI'ng the Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. ln the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. lt is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and cl'rcumstances of that case. 9. Learned counsel for the petI-tiOnerS contends that there Were Property disputes between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. To substantiate this claim, the petitioners have submitted a copy of the affidavit filed in I.A.No,247 of 2023 in O.S.No.115 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone. 10. As seen from the record, A.2 and her family members filed a suit in O.S.No.115 of 2023 seeking an injunction. The docket order in I.A.No.247 of 2023 indicates that the learned Junior Civil Judge granted an ad-interim injunction on 07.03.2023, restraining the defendants/respondents and their associates from interfering with the schedule property. This document clearly 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 E= ± -- shows that there were land disputes between the parties, as asserted. The l'ncident in question occurredJ on 15.05.2024 at ll.-30 AM. The petitioners contend that they constructed a shed on the schedule property, as outlined in O.S.No.115 of 2023, and that the defacto complainant and others attempted to enter the property armed with sticks and stones. The incident occurred when the petitioners, who had obtained the injunction order, resl'sted the actions of the defacto complainant and others| lt is further submitted that both the petitioners and their men sustained injuries during the incident. The prosecution alleges that the defacto complainant also sustained injuries, leading to the registration of the case under Sections 307, 447, and 149 of the lPC. ll. The report indicates that general allegations have been made against the accused persons. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted the wound certificate of the injured persons, indicating that the defacto complainant and others sustained simple injuries. Thus, the injuries attributed to the accused persons do not align with the injuries sustained by the petitioners. 12. According to the report, the injured persons are said to have sustained injuries to their legs and back. The material placed does not indicate that the petitioners sustained injuries to vital parts of the body. It appears that a free fight occurred between both parties, and LWs.2 to 6 said to have sustained lacerations, abrasions, and swelling. Given the ongoing litigation between the parties and the nature of the injuries, this Court views that, at this stage, it is doubtful as to whether the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC are applicable. 13. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioners are subjected to the trial's outcome. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses -- ,-. cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the I, accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 14. lt is not the prosecutionls case that the petitioners failed to cooperate with the investigation, and they are not available for interrogation. There is no indication of a likelihood that the petitioners would abscond from the jurisdiction of the court. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, based on instructions, confirms that no prior criminal record has been reported against the petitioners. petitioners 1 and 3 (A.2 and A.12), both woman and 2nd petitioner (A.3) have expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The likelihood of levying accusations with the -Intention of harming or embarrassing the petitioners through potential arrest is not improbable. 15. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, this Court views that even if the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the prosecution that they will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the petitioners have permanent abode. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation Of the petitioners in the nature of the accusations. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners would not impede the ongoing investigation. Therefore, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate cond-ltionS, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and meet the ends of justice. 16. Upon careful review of the available material, as there iS nO risk Of interference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.2, A.3 and A.12 under the following conditions: i) Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Krishnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District, within two (2) weeks from today. On such surrender, the petitioners Shall be I--I-_=i==--- enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,OOO/- (Rupees I+wenty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. ii) On such release, the 2nd petl'tioner shall appear before the concerned investigation officer once in a week i.e., every Sunday between 10.00 AM and 01.00 PM for a period of two (02) months. iil') The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and they shall not, dI'reCtly or I'ndireCtly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any Person acquainted With the facts Of the Case SO aS tO dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. 17. lt is explicitly clarified that the observations made in th]'s order are Preliminary and Pertain SOlely tO the decision On the Present application without indl'cating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are a//owec/. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition, shall stand closed. SD/-M.sRjNIVAS //TRUE COPY// `--ed `* ASS'sTA . To, KN 1. The Station House officer, KrishangI'ri Police stall-on, Kurnool DI'StriCt. 2. The Principal Dl'strjct and sessions Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool DistrI'Ct. 3. Boya Bala venkataramudu, s/o. Late Boya Talarl| Ramudu, Aged 54 years, chunchu yerragudI' Vl'llage, KrI'Shnagir,- MandaI, KurnooI Distrl'ct, Andhra pradesh, cell 9491524073. (by RPAD) 4. One cc to sRl. G VENKATA SUBBA RAJU, Advocate [opuc] 5. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One spare copy '.J I TMFi,J DATED.. 09/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3308 of 2025 ALLOWED