IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY L~J TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \Z PRESENT: / ```... THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5973 OF 2025Lrf# Betwee n : ``., 1. T. Ramanaiah, S/o. T Venkatramana, Aged about 55 years, (A2) I B= 2. T Pradeep, S/o, T'Ramanaiah, Aged about 28 years, (A3) \aJ Petitioners 1 and 2 are FVo. Rega'ntivaripallie H/o| Chinnathippa samudram, Annamayya Dist. \=# ...Petitioners Accused No.2 and 3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesri, Rep by its SHOj Madanapalle Rural; Annamayya Disifct, through Public Prosecutor High Court Bldgs, Amaravati. ...Respondents Complainant petition under section 482¥f BNSS (Old Section 4#of Cr.P.C.) is filed praying that in the circumst'ances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal F]etition, the High Court may bet pleased to enlarge the petitioners / Accused No.2 and 3 on anticipatory bail in.the event of their arrest relating to crime No. `5fof 2025 before PS M#anapalle Rural, Annamayyafoistrict for the offences under Sec. 329 (3L324 (4),109(1),132, 326 (f), 351(2),118(1 ) R/w. 3(5) o`f BNS Act and to pass tr 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 T C KRISHNAN Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC `_... PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, and the Court made the following ORDER: .`.... ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3, seeking bail, in Crime No.54/2025 of Madanapalle Rural Police Station, Annamayya District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioners and other for the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4),109(1 ),132, 326(f), 351(2),118(1 ) r/w 3(5) of the B.N.S. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, isthaton 26.02.2025 at about 9:00 A.M., the accused No.1 -A. Chalapathi, with an intention {o grab Government land, allegedly trespassed into the land classified as Gayyal land situated in Sy.No.1029 of Devatha Nagar, Madanapalle Mandal, and unlawfully erected a shed with iron sheet roofing on 25.02.2025, Upon receiving informatI'On, and PurSuant tO the directions Of the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle, the complainant along with Revenue officials proceeded to the said land to remove the encroachment. While they were in the process of removal of encroachments using a JOB, the accused, along with his followers, allegedly arrived the spot, abused the officials with a common intention {O kill, attempted to hack the complainant with a billhook but the complainant narrowly escaped injury. The accused is further alleged to have assaul{ed Revenue Inspector with a stick on his back and caused a blunt injury. The accused thereafter broke the mirrors of the JOB, poured petrol on the JOB and its driver and set fire to the vehicle, The driver escaped with minor injuries, and the JOB sustained partial . rL--r:`tgr--.ap ` \ / 3 damage valued a{ approximately Rs.1,00,000/-. lt is also alleged that the accused beat the driver with a stick causing a bleeding inJ'ury| Additionally, the accused obstructed the Revenue Officials from performing their lawful duties and forcibly took away the mobile phones of both the complainant and the Revenue Inspector. Basing on the above allegations, a report was lodged, leading to the registration of the present crime. 4. Learned counsel forthe petitioners contend that as the mother of the lSt Petitioner/A2 filed a Writ Petition against the Tahsildar and other Revenue Officials purposefully and hence the petitioners are arrayed as accused. In support Of his COn{entiOn, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a copy of the Writ Petition v,'de W.P.No.30848 of 2024 dated 31.01.2O24 wherein it shows that the mother of the lst petitioner filed a writ petition before this court seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents i.e., revenue officials in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.0.035 cents at Kondamaripalli Panchayat, Basinakonda Gramam, MadanapaIIe Village, MadanapaIIe Revenue Division, Annamayya District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, without power of authority and violative of Articles of 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. He further submits that he also filed an interlocutory applicati~on v,'de I.A.No.1 of 2O24 which shows that sri Khajabi, Tahsildar of Madanapalle Mandal, Annamayya District was directed to appear before this Court and she submitted her explanation for not submitting written instructions. lt is submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the €=- ~:59 land dispute between the Al and revenue officials. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that no specific act has been attributed against these petitioners in the report and their names were also not mentioned in the report. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail on the ground that 'lnvestigation is not completed. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record. 7. A perusal of the material on record goes {o show that even in the report some accusations have been made against A1. It is the case of the prosecution that Al said to have been made an attempt on the life of the de-facto comp'ainant. After perusing the report, this Court finds some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences under Section 329(3),109 of the B.N.S have been attributed against A1. lt is submitted th'at Al subsequent to registration of crime was released on bail. As seen from the record, except the offence under Section 109 of B.N.S, all other offences are punishable up to or less than 7 years. Since the material is not placed on record, showing the involvement of the petitionSrs attracting the Section 109 of B.N.S, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Considering the material on record and as no specific overt acts have been attributed against the petitioners implicating them for the offences under Section 109 B.N.S, this Court finds it is a fit case to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners. F 5 8. ln view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A2 and A3 with the following conditions. i) In the event of arrest of the petitioners herein/A2 and A3 in the aforesaid crime, they shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials and also on condition that the petitioner shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// i sD:-:gcTRE{c§TERR:ARRA O i To, 1. The XI Additional Sessions Judge, Piler. 2. The Station House Officer, Madanapalle Rural, Annamayya D-lstrict. 3. One CC to SRl. T C KRISHNAN, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. One spare copy KN HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED:ll/07/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5973 of 2025 ALLOWED