IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5791 OF 2025 ~~~~~ Between: 1. Vaka Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o Sudhakar Reddy Aged about 27 years,Occ. Unemployed, R/o D. No. 2-74, Chamadala Village, Jaladanki MandaI, SPSR NeIIore District 2. Samadi Audi Seshaiah, S/o Tirupalu, Aged about 46 years,Occ| Shepard. R/o D. No. 2-72, Chamadala Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Pull Sivaiah, S/o Kotaiah, Aged about 20 years,Occ. Unemployed, R/o D. No. 2-57, Chamadala Village, Jaladanki MandaI, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Pull Kotesh @ Koteswara Rao, S/o Ravi, Aged about 22 years,Occ. unemployed, R/o D. No. 2-55, Chamadala Village, Jaladanki MandaI, SPSR NeIIore District. . . .Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2,4,5 AN D .--- The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi Through s.H.O., Jaladanki Police Station, S.P.S.R Ne[[ore District. \ ...Respondent/Complainant E=t= Petition under section 482 of BNSS/ Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C,I Praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filedl in support of the Criminal Petition, the High 6ourf may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petI'tiOnerS herein / Accused No.1,2,4,5 respectively and dI'reCt the respondent to release them on bail for their apprehension in` connection with Crime No. 28/2025 on the file of on the fI-Ie of Jaladanki Police Station, s.p.s,R NeIIore District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed l'n support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Advocate for the petitioners, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the court made the following lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5791/2025 Betwee n : Vaka Rajasekhar Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court Made the followin Order: The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the BNSS, is filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.28 of 2025 of Jaladanki Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nel[ore District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 324(4) and 351 (2) read with 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.04.2025, the defacto complainant filed a report before the police stating that all \ the accused formed into a group, armed with deadly weapons such as axes and knives, and trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant while shouting loudly. They destroyed the window glass with an axe and damaged the flower pots. Upon hearing the noise, the mother of the defacto complainant came out of the house, became frightened upon seeing the accused, and went back inside. Al to A5 threatened the mother of the defacto complainant becaus'e the complainant had supported Devarapalli Padmamma in a case she filed against DevarapaIIi Nagarjuna Reddy regarding a dispute that arose during the construction of a wall between their houses. ln the light of these facts, the complainant has resorted in filing the present complaint. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequent to filing of the present anticipatory bail petition, A2 was arrested and got remanded to judicial custody. 5. As the petitioner/A2 was arrested, this criminal petition in respect of A2 is dismissed as infructuous. in respect of other petitioners/A1, A4 and A5, a perusal of the material on record goes to show that civil disputes are pending between the families of D.Sudhakar Reddy and D.Nagarjuna Reddy with regard to construction of compound wall. It is alleged that on 17.04.2025, all the accused illegally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with a weapon and caused damage to the flower pots and window glass and threatened the family members of the defacto complainant. i / 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that as many as seven witnesses were examined in the present crime and the investigation is still pending and opposed the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners/A1, A4 and A5 are graduates and they are searching for job and in the event of any coercive action against them it may affect their carrier and prays this Court to g.rant an{icipatory bail to the petitioners/ A1, A4 and A5. 8. Apparently, even as per the contents of the FIR, there are civil dispu-tes pending between two families in the village and the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 17.04.2025 at 10.00 p.m. and the same was reported before the police on 19.04.2025 at 07.30 hours with a delay of two days. Even according to the version of the defacto complainant, he is not present at the time of alleged offence and also taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 are graduates and searching for employment avenues. 9. ln view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/ A1, A4 and A5 on the following conditions: (i) In the event of their arrest, petitioners/A1, A4 and A5 shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials. (ii) The petitioners/A1, A4 and A5 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, once in a fortnight, till filing of the charge sheet. (iii) The petitioners/A1, A4 and A5 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required and that they shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. 10. The criminal petition in respect of petitioner/A2 is dismissed as infructuous. ll. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. sd/-SHAIK ASSISTANT MOHD. RAFl lsTRAR //TRUE COPY// F To, 1. The Station House Officer, Jaladanki Police Station, S.P.S.R Nellore District. 2. One CC to SRl. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT MRK,J DATED: 12/06/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5791 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWED