lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA R CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3247 OF 2025 Betwee n : 1. Lekkala Demudu, S/o. Mahalakshmi, Aged about 74 years, Occ: cultivation, R/o.D.No.6-13, Ramajogipalem, ChakipaIIi Post, - (A2) Chodavaram Mandal, Anakapalli (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, A.P. 2. Killi Lakshmi, W/o.Suribabu, Aged about 45 years, Occ: House Hold duties, R/o.D.No.5-69, Ramajogipalem, Chakipalli Post, - (A4) Chodavaram Mandal, Anakapalli (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, A.P- 3. Lekkala Atchiyamma, W/o.Demudu, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.D.No.6-13, Ramajogipalem, Chakipalli Post, - (A5) chodavaram Mandal, Anakapalli Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, A.P. ..Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Chodavaram P.S, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, - Complainant. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. € ...Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS, 2023, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Police to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused (2, 4 & 5) on bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.362 of 2024, of Chodavaram Police station, Anakapaili/ Visakhapatnam (Judicial) District, AHD. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.V.V.S.S.N.H.Bhujanga Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following APHCO10151352025' ffiFffiE lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR IJUSTICE YI LAKsHMANA RAO I £B±mINAL PETITION NO: 3.247,202§_ Between : Lekkala Demudu, and others The State of Andhra Paradesh AND [3521] ...PETITION`ER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(s): D.V.V.S.S.N.H. Bhujanga Rao Counsel for the Responclent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: I ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS') by the Petitioner Mos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 for grantI-ng Of Pre-arrest bail in COnneCtiOn I with crime No.362 of 2025 of Chodavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable uncler Sections 109 (1), 118 (1), 329 (3), 324 (4), 79, 351 (2) read wI'th 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BN§j). I \ - Dr,YLR, J Crl.P.No.3247 of2025 Da'ted 09.09.2O25 a CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is'that on 16.12.2024 between 12:30 PM and 1:00 PM, the complaI|nant, Who owns-3.50 acres of ancestral land in Chakkipalli (Survey Nos. 214-4, 214-15, 213-7, 213-ll, 215-21, 214-9), / reported that despite the MRO's endorsement in his favour, Lekkala Govinda and others had illegally entered the dI-SPuted land and cultivated paddy. while the complainant, his wife Chandramma, and son Ramu were on their way to inform the Chodavaram police and MRO, near Bonda Madhum, the accused attacked them with knives, sticks, and sickles: The complainant sustained four ( deep cuts on the head and I'njurieS tO his hands; his Wife was stabbed on the forehead, her clo.thes torn, and she was groped; Ramu was struck on the head. The accused threatened to kill them and chased them. gg±!±E_NTIONS OF THELCOUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS_:_ / 3. Sri D.V.V.S.S.N.H.i Bhujnga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their family, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any a condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticjpato`ry bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. 4. lt is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the petitioners and custodial inbterrogation is not warranted in the facts and I i..\ \ .A _ _ -i~-\\+-- Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.3247 of2025 Dated 09.09.2025 circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no. likelihood of absconding or tampering with th'e prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to -grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused No.2, 4 and 5 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhi]a Naidu, Iear-ned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed , granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation i§ at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. ]t js submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. The prosecution also apprelhends that the Petitioners may influence I witnesses or tamper with e.vidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential r'[sk to the progress of the investigat-Ion, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. I 7. Thoughtful cons'IderatiOn iS bestowed On the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: .8. ln the light of' the case of the proseclltiOn and the COntentiOnS Of the learned Couns'e! for both the sides, now the point fori consideration is: I ~. ~`9 _"l.== --- -_ 4 Dr.YLR, J CrI.P.No.3247 of2025 Dated 09.09.2025 G€Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pro-arrest bail?-- I ANALYSIS: 9. On a bare perusal of the entI-re record, it iS forthcoming that Accused No.1 beat the de-facto `complainant with a stick. Accused No.3 beat the de- facto complainant with a knife. The de-facto complaI'nant Suffered griViOuS / I'njurI-eS On his head. The wound certificate was received wherein the vi'ctim suffered grievous I'njurieS. There are no allegations against the Accused Nos.5' and 6. In fact, only omnibus allegations are leveled against the petitioners in the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant. Indeed, Accused No.1 attacked L.W.1 with a deadly weapon. Accused No.3 hacked L.W.1 with a knife. Accused No.3 also beat L.W.1 with a stick. ln the complaint given by the de-fact9 COmPlainant, all the accused tried to trespass into the field of the de- facto complaI'nant and later the alleged offences were committed. vide crime No.75 of 2023 in a land dispute, the Accused Nos.3 and 6 were figured as accused. In another crime No.241 of 2024 in a land dispute, they were 'also figurecl as accused. Based on the complaint of one of the accused in {hi; crime, a counter case in crime No.363 of 2024 was registered against the de- fac{o complainan{ and the others. Thus, there are cases and counter cases Pending in between the petitioners/accused and the de-facto complainant and others. In this case, the victim suffered grievous injuries. Therefore, Section 118 (2) of {the BNS.,J was added. Accused No.1 was already released on bail. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is aged about 74 years. |Petitioner c{-S ' ±ZgrS±rm~i-:==;rS:=!r . 5 Dr.YLR, J CrI.P.No.3247 of2025 Dated 09.09.2025 No.2/Accused No.4 is the de-facto complainan{ in crime No.363 of 2024. The Petitioner No.3/Accused No.5 is aged about 64 years. The Petitioner No's,2 and. 3/Accused Nos.4 and 5 are females. I / 10. ln view of the omnib.us allegations levele.d against Petitioners and the gravity and-nature of the allegations, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos|2, 4 and 5. CONCLUSION: ll. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions: i. ln the event of his arrest, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a bond for a suin of Rs.20,000/i (Rupees Twenty / Thousand only), with_ two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner Nos.1 to-3/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; I iii. The PetitI-Oner Nos.1 t'o 3/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the' prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 shall appear before the station House Officer concerned Once in a week i.e., I /Z`,- I- V. VI. To, i 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.3247 of 2025 Dated o9.09.2025 on every saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till fill'ng of the charge sheet. The PetI.tjOner Nos]1 to 3/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 sha" not leave I the district limits without the express perml-ssjon from the station House offl®cer concerned. The Petl'tioner Mos.1 to.3/Accused Mos.2, 4 and 5 sha" surrender their passports, if any, to the investigatl|ng officer. lf they claim / that they do not have passports, they shall submI-I an affI'daVjt to that effect to the lnvestI-gating OffI-Cer. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU //TRJUE COPY// 1. The station House offI-C.er, Chodavaram police station, Anakapa"" visakhapatnam (JudjcI'aI) District, A.P. 2. One CC to SrI' D.V|V.S.S.N.H.JBhujanga Rao, Advocate [opuc] r\ - 3. Two cos topuBLIC Amaravati.[ouT] 4. One spare copy. PSD PROSECUTOR, Hl'gh court of A.P., I . '\ HIGH COURT a I DR.YLR,J DATE : 09/09/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3247 of 2025 ALLOWED