APHC010372862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7690 and 7703 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7690/2025 Between: Eppe Narasappa ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7703/2025 Between: Tholla Naresh Alias Naresh and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Petition Nos.7690 of 2025 and Criminal Petition No.7703 of 2025 have been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner/A1 and petitioners/A2 to A5 respectively, for granting bail in connection with Crime No.97 of 2025 of Ananthapuram 4th TownPolice Station, Anantapuramu District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections126(2), 140 (4), 308(5), 118(1), 115(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS). 2. Criminal Petition Nos. 7690 of 2025 and 7703 of 2025 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as the petitioners in both petitions are accused in the same crime. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the defacto complainant is a married person having two children. Previously, Accused No.5 was running a Hotel in Ananthapuramu Town and since one year, she is living with Accused No.1 at Tadipatri Town. When Accused No.5 was at 3 Anantapuramu Town, the complainant got acquaintance with Accused No.5 and was talking with her. Even after Accused No.5 settled at Tadipatri Town, the complainant used to call her on phone, Accused No.5 asked the complainant not to call her on phone. However, the complainant continued to call her on phone. In that connection, Accused No.1 reprimanded the complainant not to call Accused No.5 on phone. On 05.05.2025 at 7.45 p.m., Accused No.5 called the complainant on phone and asked him to come near RTC Bus-Stand, Ananthapuramu Town. Hence, the complainant went to bus stand and on the request of Accused No.5, he was taking her to Kalyandurg Bypass Road, Anantapuramu Town in his auto. At about 8.30 p.m., A1 to A4 came in a car bearing No.AP-16-EZ-1411 and stopped the auto of the complainant and forcibly taken the complainant into their car and started going towards Anantapuramu Town. When the complainant questioned, the assailants threatened him that they will kill him and they also beat him with hands and legs and hit him on his stomach with a stick and abused him for talking with A5 inspite of their warning and further warned that they will take him to the outskirts and break his legs. When the complainant raised hue and cries, the accused left him on the railway fly over bridge in Anantapuramu Town and went away. Then, the complainant went to the police station and preferred the complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 5. 4 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the material on record. 5. Sri K.Narsi Reddy,the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitionersare innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitionersare the sole earning members of their families and, therefore, their continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petitions be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petitions be dismissed. 7. The defacto complainant is a married man. Accused No. 5 is also a married woman with whom the defacto complainant had previously maintained a relationship, due to which he used to contact Accused No.5 occasionally. Accused No.1, who is also a married man, is alleged by the defacto 5 complainant to have developed an extramarital relationship with Accused No.5. Thus, two married men are involved in a form of relationship with another married woman, which led to disputes between the defacto complainant and the other accused. 8. The defacto complainant has specifically alleged that Accused No.1, along with the other accused, abducted him for a while and assaulted him with a stick during the abduction, which was carried out in a car. There are specific overt acts attributed by the defacto complainant against A1 that he along with other accused abducted him for a while and kicked him with sticks in the process of abduction in a car. There are no specific overt acts individually attributed against A2 to A5 except saying that they all fisted the defacto complainant. Accused Nos.2 to 5 were arrested on 06.05.2025 and have been in judicial custody for the past 86 days. Accused No.1 was arrested on 24.06.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 36 days. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the wound certificate is yet to be received and only four witnesses have been examined so far. 9. In view of the specific overt acts attributed to Accused No.1, the request for bail made by Accused No.1 at this stage is neither convincing nor reasonable. Hence, Criminal Petition No. 7690 of 2025 is liable to be dismissed. 6 10. At this stage, Sri K. Narsi Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner/Accused No. in Criminal Petition No. 7690 of 2025, seeks permission to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file afresh as and when necessary. Permission is granted. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No. 7690 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. 11. As regards the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in Criminal Petition No.7703 of 2025, they are entitled to be released on bail, having been in judicial custody for the past 86 days, and in view of the fact that no specific individual overt acts have been attributed against them by the defacto complainant. 12. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners/A2 to A5, their alleged role in the case, and the period of detention already undergone, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners/A2 to A5 on bail in Criminal Petition No. 7703 of 2025, subject to the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in Criminal Petition No.7703 of 2025 shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two (02) sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class for Prohibition and Excise, Anantapuramu; ii. After release, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in Criminal Petition No.7703 of 2025shall appear before the Station House Officer, 7 Ananthapuram 4th Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu District once a month, on every 1st day of the month between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., till filing of charge sheet; iii. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned; iv. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for investigation by the investigating officer as and when required; v. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall not commit or indulge in the commission of any offence in the future; vi. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer. vii. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claims that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the investigating officer. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition No.7690 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn and Criminal Petition No.7703 of 2025 is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.07.2025 S D P 8 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7690 and 7703 of 2025 Date:30.07.2025 S D P