APHC010319702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6631/2025 Between: GURIGINJAKUNTA SIVA SATHYAM NAIDU, S/O NAGAMALLAPPA NAIDU, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO 31, HESARAGHUTTA, MAVALLIPURA, SIVAKOTI, BANGALORE CITY. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF AP, rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with 2 Crime No.122 of 2025 on the file of Madanapalli Taluk Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 115(2), 118(1), 127(3), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.05.2025 at approximately 7:30 p.m., Peddikotla Venugopal, engaged in agricultural occupation, resident of Nallamandlapalle Village, Pothabolu Panchayath, Madanapalle Mandal, left his residence stating to his family members that he intended to visit Madanapalle Town for personal work. However, subsequent to his departure, his whereabouts became unknown. The complainant, Peddikotla Harshavardhan, S/o P. Venugopal, along with other family members and relatives, made extensive efforts to trace the missing person by searching nearby areas and visiting relatives’ residences, but the missing individual could not be located. It is further submitted that prior to his disappearance, the missing person was last known to have been in conversation with one Bhaskar of Rayachoti Town. The complainant suspects that the said Bhaskar may have taken his father or is otherwise connected to his disappearance. 3. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the petitioner is sole bread winner of his family. The petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner would abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant bail to the Petitioner. 3 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he will repeat the same offence, and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, Petitioner/Accused No.1 and other accused abducted the father of the defacto complainant. On 07.05.2025, the son of the victim lodged a report with police. On 11.05.2025, the defacto complainant got a phone call information that his father was in bushes. They went there and noticed that his father was thrown in bushes with certain injuries. As seen from the remand report there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner which involves the punishable offences for kidnap, wrongful confinement for about six days and also indiscriminately beating the victim. 7. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations and the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court feels that the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and move an appropriate application for his release before the learned Magistrate concerned. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned 4 within one week from the date of receipt of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate for enlarging him on bail. The learned Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by giving due and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Magistrate and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days. 9. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 28.07.2025 VTS