APHC010375012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7739/2025 Between: MADDU KANNAYYA NAIDU, S/O MADDU RAMU NAUIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-54, CHANDRAYYA VEEDI, ROLUGUNTA MANDALAM, ROLUGUNTA, ANAKAPALLI DITRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. By its PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Through Rolugunta SHO, Anakapalli District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: RAJA SEKHAR SYKAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 2 Dr.YLR,J 04.08.2025 Crl.P.No.7739 of 2025 The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.46 of 2025 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.06.2025 at 10:00 hours, the complainant, Ruttala Nookaraju, appeared before the Police Station and lodged a report alleging that on 05.06.2025, the complainant had engaged a lorry on a rental basis for work-related purposes. On the same day, at approximately 14:30 hours, one Maddu Kannyya Naidu, a resident of the same village, had placed a food plate for his dog near his shed. The lorry driver, unaware of the plate's presence, inadvertently drove over it, causing damage. Despite offering a replacement plate, the driver was prevented from proceeding with the assigned work. Subsequently, Maddu Kannyya Naidu instructed the driver to call him for a discussion. The driver made several attempts to contact him telephonically while he was resting. Eventually, at around 15:00 hours, the driver proceeded to the lorry stop. It is alleged that, in the presence of hired workers Nethi Demudu and Rongali Paidi Nayudu, the said 3 Dr.YLR,J 04.08.2025 Crl.P.No.7739 of 2025 Maddu Kannyya Naidu armed himself with a drilling rod and issued a threat to the complainant, stating “I will kill you,” and attempted to strike him on the head. The complainant, in an act of self-defense, raised his hand to block the blow, resulting in a grievous injury specifically, a triple fracture to his left hand. The complainant, being a septuagenarian and suffering from chronic ailments including hypertension, diabetes, and renal complications, was unable to withstand the assault and collapsed face down. While in a vulnerable position on the ground, Maddu Kannyya Naidu allegedly continued the assault by kicking and striking the complainant twice on his back with the same rod. Subsequent efforts to mediate and resolve the matter through village elders proved futile. 3. Sri Rajasekhar Syakam, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that one Ch.Nagamani and the defacto complainant roped the Petitioner into a false case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant bail to the petitioner. 4 Dr.YLR,J 04.08.2025 Crl.P.No.7739 of 2025 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner that the some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law; and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioner is a rowdy sheeter, and six cases have been registered against him. As seen from the averments of the FIR, statements of the LWs.1 & 2, there are specific overt acts levelled against the Petitioner. L.W.2 is an independent eyewitness. It was alleged that the Petitioner caused grievous injuries with an iron rod on the defacto complainant who is aged about 70 years. Indeed, pre-arrest bail is not a shield or protection to any person against whom specific overt acts are there, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi2. In view of 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 Dr.YLR,J 04.08.2025 Crl.P.No.7739 of 2025 the specific overt acts levelled against the Petitioner and his alleged role in this case, the Petitioner is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 04.08.2025 VTS