APHC010182232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3901/2025 Between: Brijji Jaya Kumar @ Bajji Sarath ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BARREE ANANDKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER:- The Criminal Petition, u/Sec.482 of B.N.S.S is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.31/2025 of Seethanagaram Police Station, East Godavari District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 109(1), 189(2), 189(4) r/w 190 of BNS. 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.02.2025 at about 8.30 a.m., the defacto complainant lodged a report stating that his villagers Guru Siva Sathish, Kalla Nagendra, and Kalla Durga Prasad were present at Mirthipadu Pathapeta Center. At that time, one Vadapalli Suresh, who belongs to SC Community, picked up argument with them. The defacto complainant pacified them. After some time, while he was present at his house, A1 to A14 along with others came to him and beat him with sticks on his head and caused bleeding and abrasion injuries. Immediately, the defacto complainant shifted to hospital for treatment. 4. Heard. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no specific accusations have been made against the petitioner and it is a counter blast to the case in Crime No.30 of 2025. 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail on the ground that without change of circumstances, the petitioner has come up with second bail application. 7. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions 3 presented in the Petition as well as in the report. Consequently, the contentions presented by the learned counsel need not be reproduced. 8. In Mahipal V. Rajesh1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime. 9. In a decision reported in between Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that; “Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty”. 10. In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answers upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict”. 11. The anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 2 2015 SAR (Criminal) 156 3 (1980( 2 Supreme Court Cases 565 4 prima facie convinced that the Petitioner is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted. 12. As seen from the earlier orders passed in Crl.P.No.2393 of 2025, this Court has not been inclined to consider the application of A1, noting that specific accusations have been made against A1 to A3, stating that they beat the complainant. It is specifically alleged that A1 beat the defacto complainant with a stick on his head, resulting in grievous injuries. 13. Considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO , J Date.24.04.2025. S D P 5 104 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Petition No.3955 of 2025 Dated:24.04.2025 S D P