APHC010325442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6710 Between: 1. SIVA JYOTHI @ SADA SIVA JYOTHI,, C/O SADA KALYAN, D.NO.28 68, SADAVARIPALE.3RD MILE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. POLAMMA ALIAS SADA POLAMMA, D/O SADA SANJEEVAIAH SADAVARIPALEM,3RD NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. POLAMMA @ SADA POLAMMA,, D/O SADA SANJEEVAIAH, SADAVARIPALEM,3RD MILE, NAWABPETA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Pro High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6710 OF 2025 SIVA JYOTHI @ SADA SIVA JYOTHI,, C/O SADA KALYAN, D.NO.28 68, SADAVARIPALE.3RD MILE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE POLAMMA ALIAS SADA POLAMMA, D/O SADA SANJEEVAIAH SADAVARIPALEM,3RD MILE, NAWABPETA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. POLAMMA @ SADA POLAMMA,, D/O SADA SANJEEVAIAH, SADAVARIPALEM,3RD MILE, NAWABPETA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Pro High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO SIVA JYOTHI @ SADA SIVA JYOTHI,, C/O SADA KALYAN, D.NO.28-7- 68, SADAVARIPALE.3RD MILE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE POLAMMA ALIAS SADA POLAMMA, D/O SADA SANJEEVAIAH MILE, NAWABPETA, NELLORE, SPSR POLAMMA @ SADA POLAMMA,, D/O SADA SANJEEVAIAH, SADAVARIPALEM,3RD MILE, NAWABPETA, NELLORE, SPSR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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.2 and 3 for granting of Pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.162 of 2025 of Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 333, 109, 324(4), 118(1), 115(2) read with 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is thaton 13.04.2025 at 19.00 hrs at 3rd Mile, Sadavaripalem, Nellore Rural Mandal, wherein the Accused No.1 Kalyan, his wife Siva Jyothi and his mother Accused No.3, Polamma and some others picked up a quarrel with the defacto complainant and while the defacto complainant was at her house, it is alleged that about three years back the defacto complainant lend Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Accused No.2. On 13.04.2025 at 7.00 hrs, when the defacto complainant insisted the Accused No.2 to repay the amount, the Accused No.1 to 3 along with others came to defacto complainant’s house, attacked with rods and caused bleeding injuries to her husband and relatives. The Accused also taken away the cash and gold articles by committing theft. Hence, the above case is registered. 3. Mr. Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the Petitionerscontends that the Petitionersare innocents of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the Police. It is further submitted that all the allegations in the FIR are against Accused No.1, who is husband of Accused No.2. There are no allegations against the Accused No.2 and 3.The Petitionersare the sole earning members of their family and, they are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of Pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. There are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and grievous injuries have been suffered by the victims. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Section 118(2) of ‘the BNS’ was also added. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. It is averred in the FIR lodged by the defacto complainant that Accused 1 and 2 borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and failed to repay the same. The defacto complainant asked for repayment. It is the specific allegation of the defacto complainant that Accused No.1 along with some other Accused in order to do away the life of the defacto complainant and her husband, engaged Accused No.4 and some other Accused went to the house of the defacto complainant and voluntarily picked up the quarrel with her and her husband. Accused No.4 along with some more Accused came in a car and Auto, armed with sticks, iron rods, stones and asked the defacto complainant and her husband, beat them indiscriminately and caused multiple head injuries. When the brother of the husband of the defacto complainant came and rescued the defacto complainant and her husband, he also received multiple injuries. When the wife of brother of the husband of the defacto complainant has intervened, the Petitioners and other Accused also beat her and caused multiple head injuries. There are several injured persons in the attack by the Accused. LW-4 sustained grievous injury. There are eye witnesses to the occurrence. 7. Be that as it may, there is specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. Granting of the pre-arrest bail to an Accused is not a shield or protection for having committed an offence as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi2. 8. In view of the adverse antecedents against the Petitioners and their specific role played in this case, they are disentitled to get pre-arrest bail. Hence, this Court does not deem it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 04.09.2025 KK 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6710 OF 2025 02.09.2025 KK