1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 APHC010385972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7924/2025 Between: V. Manigandan ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State f Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Kothapalli Kodandapani Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. G.Krishnaprasad Royal 2. 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 Petitioner/Accused No.5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.41 of 2025 of Vijayapuram Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2), read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.06.2025 at about 11:30 p.m., the complainant, who is the younger brother of the deceased, reported that Accused Nos.1 to 9 and others, all residents of Arumbakam Village, Tiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, followed the deceased on a tractor, hit his motorcycle, causing him to fall on the road. Thereafter, the accused allegedly attacked him brutally with sickles, inflicting grievous injuries on his left neck, left jaw, right hand, and other parts of the body, resulting in his death on the spot. The incident is stated to have arisen from a land dispute between the family of accused Venkatesan and the deceased. Hence, the FIR was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri K. Kodandapani, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.5 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. The prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation. It is further submitted that, so far, twelve witnesses have been examined, and call data records establish communication between Accused Nos.1 and 5. The petitioner’s involvement came to light based on the confessions of Accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Sri Gopal Krishna Royal, learned counsel for the 2ndrespondent, while reiterating the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 of pre-arrest bail, as he is alleged to have been involved in the murder of the deceased. He further submits that the petitioner/Accused No.5 and his brother- in-law/accused No.6 observed the movements of 2nd respondent’s brother, informed other accused, and conspired to murder him it was realized by him through the villagers only after Venkateswaran’s death. Following a complaint to the SP, Chittoor on 05.07.2025, the petitioner/Accused No.5 and others threatened witnesses, leading to FIR No.127/2025 at K.K. Chatram Police. The petitioner/Accused No.5 is a habitual offender and history-sheeter (No.38/2017) with numerous criminal and sand theft cases from 2015 to 2019. Additionally, petitioner’s/accused No.5 brother-in-law illegally encroached on government land for commercial construction; despite a demolition order, political influence stalled action, prompting villagers to file W.P.No.21707/2024. The Madras High Court on 7.8.2024 ordered demolition within eight weeks. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 ANALYSIS: 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, a decision relied on by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, at para Nos.27, 30, and 31 it is held as under: “27... Let us now consider these principles in the context of the facts of the present case. Both the sides have presented their point of view in relation to the enmity which existed between the deceased Vikas Singh and the family of Ujiyar Singh. However, we are not required to adjudicate on whether it was the deceased Vikas Singh or Ujiyar Singh who was mining sand illegally; rather, it is sufficient to note that previous enmity did exist between both, whoever be the instigator. 30. Finally, it has also been argued on behalf of Suryabhan Singh that while the appellant's statement under Section 164 CrPC is that Suryabhan Singh also shot at the appellant, the FIR and his statement under Section 161CrPC only record that he hit him with the butt of the gun. The trial is yet to take place where the evidence adduced by the prosecution will be appreciated, and the veracity of appellant's claim in his statement under Section 164 can be determined there. However, at the present stage, the FIR and both the appellant's statements under Sections 161 and 164 are consistent inasmuch as that Suryabhan Singh did hit him in his head with the butt of the gun. An argument has also been raised in relation to the nature of the injury caused to the appellant, but this has to be decided at the stage of trial after evidence has been led. 31. The Court has to determine whether on the basis of the material available at this stage, the High Court has applied the correct principles in allowing the applications for anticipatory bail. The offence is of a serious nature in which Vikas Singh was murdered. The FIR and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC indicate a specific role to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime. The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court”. 11. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 further relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v.Dharamraj2 wherein at para Nos.6, 9, 13, and 20 it is held as under: “6… A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 1 (2022) 14 SCC 645 2 (2023) 17 SCC 510 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] . In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] , the relevant principles were restated thus : (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar case [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] , SCC p. 499, para 9) 9.It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 13. As would be manifest from the impugned order [Dharamraj v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4632] , the reasoning thereof is contained in paras 7-12. Closer perusal reveals what weighed with the High Court: (a) That the maximum sentence for the offences in the first information report did not exceed 7 years. (b) That the possibility of the respondent influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence et al, could be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. (c) That the respondent's declaration as a proclaimed offender was not on account of him deliberately avoiding court. (d) That the respondent was a first-time offender and deserved a chance to “reform and course correct”. 20. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order [Dharamraj v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4632] granting anticipatory bail to the respondent is set aside. The respondent shall 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 surrender before the Court concerned within four weeks from today and may seek regular bail which will be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the present judgment.” 12. An application has been filed under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, seeking for granting pre-arrest bail without approaching the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that such procedure is contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala3 wherein at para Nos.7 to 9, it is held as follows:- “7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre- arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so, because if the parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/ extra-ordinary circumstances.” 13. Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establishes a special or extra ordinary circumstance. As seen from the 3 SPL (Crl.) Nos.6588 of 2025 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 averments, the Petitioners neither established a special circumstance nor extra-ordinary circumstance. 14. As seen from the record, it is evident that the Petitioner/Accused No.5 allegedly conspired with the other accused to eliminate the deceased. The involvement of the petitioner and Accused Nos.4 and 6 to 9 came to light based on the confessions of Accused Nos.2 and 3. Call data records also establish communication between Accused Nos.1 and 5 at the relevant point of time. While Accused Nos.1 to 3 are alleged to have directly committed the murder of the deceased and are presently in judicial custody, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that a rowdy sheet bearing No.17 has been registered against the petitioner at Kanakasatram Police Station. In addition, three other offences under ‘the I.P.C.,’ have been registered against him. The elder brother of the de-facto complainant was brutally murdered, and L.W.1, in his complaint to the police, strongly suspected the petitioner’s involvement. So far, twelve witnesses have only been examined, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. Therefore, the petitioner’s request for pre-arrest bail cannot be considered, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. CONCLUSION: 15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2025. KMS 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7924 of 2025 Dated 15.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9724 of 2025 Date:15.09.2025 KMS