APHC010315272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6471/2025 Between: 1. Y. NARESH,, S/O. CHINNA REDDEPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. YEDDULAVARI KOTA, R.N. THANDA, KOTALA, THAMBALLAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, NOW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-accused No. 2 in crime No. 24 of 2025 of ThamballapalliPolice Station, AnnamayyaDistrict, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 324 (4), 118 (1) and 351 (3) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 11-05-2025 at around 1 a.m., accused Nos. 2 to 5 came to the house of de facto complainant in Tata Intra vehicle with intention to attack him. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 started throwing small stones at the house of de facto complainant. When de facto complainant and his uncle by name Prasad came out from the house, accused No. 4 tried to attack de facto complainant with a knife with intention to kill him. When Prasad intervened, accused No. 4 stabbed him on his left cheek. Accused No. 2 also tried to attack de facto complainant with a knife. Father of de facto complainant by name Veeranjaneyulu came out from the house and shouted loudly and on hearing his cries, accused Nos. 2 to 5 ran away from the spot. Thereafter, de facto complainant and his father shifted Prasad to Government General Hospital, Thamballapalli, for treatment. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It 3 is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of absconding or evading the process of law. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed for grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioneron bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 4 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 2 is that he, with the aid of other accused, caused grievous injury to L.W.10 with weapons. There are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner. L.Ws.1 to 9 are eyewitnesses. He with the other accused allegedly tried to stab L.W.10 in a pre-planned way by carrying along with them weapons in midnight. Investigation is not yet completed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is one more adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner vide crime No. 41 of 2020. The request of learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail is rejected as there are no merits in the petition for the present. CONCLUSION: 9. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:12-09-2025, JSK 5 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6471 OF 2025 DATE: 12-09-2025 JSK