~® -I I-'=-=--=----ou IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULYL/ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE of :PRESENT: of' THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5737 OF 2025 # .:.;fkxgir;`;;Aftyg_I Between : Marapala \rfrjuna Reddy, S/o Pothuraju, Aged about 58 years Kukkalavari pa]em Village, China Ganjam MandaI, Bapatla District. \dgr£ .. I Petitioner/Accuseci AND segr,.I The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravathi i+- ..Respondent/ComplainanE . .ffi=DE-l Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, t'he High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of petitioner arrest in connection with crime No.#/2025 dt.o7.0`3f2025 on the fI-le Of Chinnaganjaffip'-Police Station, Bapatla District for`= alleged offence u/s. Sec.115(2),118(1), r/w 3(5), of B.N.S 2023. lo~J The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the` |/,- arguments of SRI M. SAPTHAGIRl, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the Court made the following / 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The Cr]-ml-nat pe{itI|On has been fI'led under SectI'On 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for brev]'{y tthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petj[l'oner/Accused on antl'cjpatory bail I'n Cr.No.16 of 2025 of chinaganjam poII|Ce Station, Bapatla District, registered against the petitI'Oner/Accused herein for the offence punishable under sectl-ons 115 (2)I 118 (1) read with 3 (5) of Bharatjya Nyaya sanhjta, 2023 (for brevI-ty {the BNS Act!). 2. Facts, Ion br['ef, are that there is house site dispute in between the de- facto complainant and the petitI'Oner who are brothers. on o6.03.2025, at about 19.'30 hours, the de-facto complainant and others went to the house of hI-S brother to conduct panchaya{ about the house site issue. Accused No.1 beat the complajnant with pestle on head and mouth which caused bleeding I-njurjes and other Accused beat hl-m with hands and legs. The wife of the de- facto comp[ainant admI-tted hI-m in the Government Hospl-tal for treatment. After enquiring and recordl|ng the statements of the complajnant, the police regI'Stered a case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public prosecutor. perused the record. 4. Srj. M. Sap{hagjr[-, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pet[-tioner has not committed any offence,- petl-t[-oner was falsely I-mPljCated by the police I|n the crime; petitioner is the sole breadwinner; petitioner would abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and urged to allow the petition. 5. Percor,ira, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, oppos-ed in granting of bail stating 'that, some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitioneris enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. On a careful perusal of the averments of the report given the de-facto complainant in Crime No.16 of 2025, there are no specifI'C allegations, let alone the specific overtacts against the petitioner. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are own brothers. Of course, there is a statement of L.W.3, who stated about the role of the petitioner/Accused No.8. It appears that based on the confession of L.W.3, the petition'er/Accused No.8 was added in this case as accused. 7. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, when a co-accused gave a confession before a police officer, based on that confession, if a person is-arrayed as accused in the case, it can be taken into consideration while enlarging the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, sihce the co-accused confession is not valid in the eye of law. 12025SCC OnlineSC 1157 I-L_ Q=*giv.`=+a 8. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, and hI'S alleged role in the case, this Court is inclined to grant the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner with the following stringent conditions. a) ln the event of arrest of the petitI-Oner, the Petitioner Shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arre`sting poll-Ce Officials; b) The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required,I c) The petitioner shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once I|n a Week i.e., On every Second Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m.,, till filing of the charge sheet. e) The petitioner shall not leave the district limits without the express permissI'Oh from the Station House Officer concerned. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// / Sd/-M.PRABHAKARA RAG ASSISTANT E]E + RAR To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at ongole 2. The station House Officer, Chl|nnaganjam poll-Ce Station, Bapatla DI'StriCt 3. One cc to sRl. M. SAPTHAGIRI Advocate [opuc] 4. Two cos to puBuC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra pradesh [OUT] HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 14/07/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5737 of 2025 ALLOWED