APHC010340252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7044/2025 Between: 1. AZIM ALIAS SYED AZEEM, S/O. SYED GHOUSE, AGED 30 YRS, R/O. 20-S11-1896, KOTHAPALLI, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. RUDRA @ GOSALA RUDRA KUMAR,, S/O. GOSALA VENKATESH, AGED 23 YRS, R/O. 1-129/A, AVILALA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7044 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 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 Nos.1 and 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.135 of 2025 of Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 308 (2), 118 (1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.04.2025 at about 11:00 A.M., the complainant, along with his friend, while proceeding towards Air Bypass Road, was approached by the accused, who came on a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner towards the complainant and his friend. When questioned by the complainant, the accused, who were on the motorcycle, called some other accused over the phone. Subsequently, four other accused persons came in a white-colored car, and all the accused attacked the complainant and his friend with stones and an iron rod. As a result, the complainant received a bleeding injury on his face, and both sustained blunt injuries. One of the accused forcibly took the iPhone 14 Pro Max mobile phone from the complainant, 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7044 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 worth about Rs.50,000/-, and escaped from the scene. On enquiry, the complainant learnt that the accused are residents of Korlagunta. Based on the complainant’s report, a case was registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they are the sole breadwinners of their family; they were falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.5781 of 2025, dated 01.07.2025, wherein this Court enlarged Accused No. 4 on bail, and urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not yet completed; if the petitioners were granted pre- arrest bail, they will repeat the same offence and urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7044 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 6. As seen from the record, the principle of parity cannot be drawn for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 because the nature of allegations is altogether different from the allegations of the Accused No.4. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are entitled for release on bail on the principle of parity as the main Accused were enlarged on bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In this regard, it is relevant to comprehend the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, relied on by the prosecution in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana 1 ,wherein at paragraph Nos.25 and 26 it is held as under regarding the applicability of the principle of parity: “25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) “17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.” 1(2021) 6 SCC 230 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7044 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [PravinbhaiHirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [KhetabhaiParbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with SidhdhrajsinhBhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [SiddhrajsinhBhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was “assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)”. Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law.” 8. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, liberty is given to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 to surrender before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, and move an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate concerned, is directed to dispose of the application on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in four (04) days. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.07.2025 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7044 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 83 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7044 of 2025 Date:16.07.2025 RSI