APHC010237972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. PHANI C PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS,S/O. SAKE PEDDA RAMUDU, B-TECH STUDENT,R/O. NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM VILLAGE AND MANDALANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Bukkarayasamudram Police StationRepresented by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances st Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to direct the S.H.O., Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, Ananthapuram, to release the Petitioner/A-3 on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.222 of 2025 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, Ananthapuram District, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. YATTAPU BHARATH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3732/2026 PHANI C PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS,S/O. SAKE PEDDA TECH STUDENT,R/O. NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM VILLAGE AND MANDALANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 515701 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Through SHO, Bukkarayasamudram Police StationRepresented by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to direct the S.H.O., Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, Ananthapuram, to release the 3 on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with o.222 of 2025 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, Ananthapuram District, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: YATTAPU BHARATH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA PHANI C PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS,S/O. SAKE PEDDA TECH STUDENT,R/O. NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM VILLAGE AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ,Through SHO, Bukkarayasamudram Police StationRepresented by its Public ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS ated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to direct the S.H.O., Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, Ananthapuram, to release the 3 on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with o.222 of 2025 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, Ananthapuram 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3732/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused No.3 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.222 of 2025, dated 03.12.2025, on the file of Bukkaraya Samudram Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 118(1) r/w 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”). 2. Heard Sri Yattapu Bharath Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.3, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. Perused the material available on record. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.11.2025 at about 2.30 P.M., the de facto complainant, namely C. Bala Kondanna, along with his wife Ramathulasi and mother Salamma, was grazing their sheep in their agricultural land. At that time, Accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly came to the field of the complainant and questioned them alleging that their sheep had grazed in the land belonging to the accused persons, which led to a quarrel. During the course of the incident, A1 and A2 allegedly attacked the complainant with sticks and stones and caused injuries on his right elbow, forehead and neck region. It is further alleged that A1 and A2 punched the complainant on his 3 mouth causing swelling injuries. The specific allegation against the present petitioner/A3 is that he caused grievous injuries to the injured during the course of the incident. Based on the report lodged by the complainant, the present crime was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is further contended that Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were already enlarged on bail by the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile Court), Ananthapuramu, vide orders dated 05.02.2026 in Cr.M.P. No.39 of 2026. It is submitted that major part of the investigation has already been completed, material witnesses were examined and charge sheet is also filed. Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and therefore prayed to grant anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the present petitioner/A3 is specifically attributed with causing grievous injuries to the injured. It is further contended that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of his tampering with the prosecution evidence and threatening the witnesses. 6. Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the case diary and material placed on record, prima facie discloses that a specific overt act is attributed against the petitioner/A3. The 4 material on record reveals that the petitioner allegedly caused grievous injuries to the injured in the course of the incident. The nature of accusation and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed indicate the seriousness of the allegations. 8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that co- accused were granted bail, the role attributed to the present petitioner stands on a different footing in view of the allegation relating to causing grievous injuries. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected by the Investigating Agency, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 13.05.2026 KKV 5 303 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3732/2026 13.05.2026 KKV