V APHC010386562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7951 OF 2025 BETWEEN: G Rajesh, S/o. G. Venkatarathnam, Aged about 22 years, r/o. 2-250-24-C-2- 2, Ramireddy Layout, B.K. Palle, Madanapalle, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, Annamayya District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C of BNSS - 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A4 on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.24 of 2025, dated 12-05-2025 on the file of Thamballapalli Police Station, Chitttor District now Annamayya District. Counsel for the Petitioner:- SRI RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent:- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010386562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7951/2025 Between: G RAJESH, S/O. G. VENKATARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 2-250-24-C-2-2, RAMIREDDY LAYOUT, B.K. PALLe! MADANAPALLE, MADANAPALLE MANDIA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. R/0. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. 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.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime 2 No.24 of 2025 of Thamballapalli Police Station Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 324(4) . 118(1), 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.2025 at 07:30 p.m., the complainant, Yeddula Niranjan had gone to flour mill to grind rice. After handing over the rice to Narasimha, the operator of the mill, sat on a bench opposite the premises. At that time, five individuals the complainant namely Botikinda Teja Murthy (A-1), Yeddula Naresh (A-2), Thurugonda Madhusudan (A-3), Madanapalli Rajesh (A-4), and Bangalore Yashwanth (A-5) a nearby wedding venue and began to verbally abuse the complainant without ' arrived from any provocation. When the complainant questioned the reason for such insults, Teja Murthy (A-1) allegedly assaulted him by punching Rajesh (A-4) then held the complainant by the throat and continued to abuse him, while Naresh (A-2) and Madhusudan (A-3) kicked him his back. with their legs. Upon hearing the complainant's cries, his relative Madhukar arrived at the scene, intervened, and managed to pacify the situation, causing the accused to disperse. 3. Following the incident, the complainant returned Burujupalli Village, Zunzurupenta Panchayathi, Thamballapalli to his residence in Mandal, Annamayya District, had dinner, and went to bed along with uncle, Prasad. However, in the early hours of 11.05.2025, at around 01:00 AM, the accused persons (A-2 to A-5) allegedly arrived his maternal at the complainant’s 3 K residence in a Tata Intra transport vehicle bearing registration number KA50 B 2431, with the intent to further assault him. They began pelting stones at the complainant’s house, prompting the complainant and his uncle Prasad to come outside. At that moment, Rajesh (A-4) allegedly attempted to attack the complainant with a knife, with the intention to cause grievous harm or death. When Prasad intervened to protect his nephew, Rajesh (A-4) stabbed him on the left cheek. Naresh (A-2) also attempted to assault the complainant with a knife. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant’s father, Veeranjaneyulu came out of the house and raised an alarm, causing the accused persons (A-2 to A-5) to flee from the scene. Thereafter, the complainant, along with his father and friend Narendra, transported the injured Prasad to the Government Hospital at Thamballapalli for medical attention. 4. The attending medical officer referred the injured to the Government Hospital at Madanapalle for further treatment. Upon evaluation, the doctors at Madanapalle referred the injured to Nemali Facial Surgical and Multi-Specialty Dental Center, Madanapalle, where he was admitted for specialized care. On 12.05.2025 at about 06:00 p.m., the complainant approached the Police Station and lodged the present complaint. The motive behind the alleged offences is stated to be prior enmity between the complainant and accused persons (A-1 and A-2). 5. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the alleged offences pertain to Sections 115(2), 118(1), 324(4), and 351(3) of the BNS’. Section 115(2) corresponds to voluntarily causing hurt with imprisonment up to one year or with fine. Section 118(1) relates to causing injury by means of weapons or dangerous instruments. Section 324(4) of ‘the BNS’ pertains to mischief resulting in damage exceeding Rs.20,000/- but less than Rs. 1,00,000/- punishable carrying a maximum punishment of two years. Section 351(3) of ‘the BNS deals with criminal intimidation punishment extending up to seven years. with 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted prosecution has merely alleged that the Petitioner, along with others, approached the residence of the de-facto complainant and pelted stones. However, there is no evidence of actual damage to property substantiated act of criminal intimidation. The only injury alleged is that Accused No.4 caused harm to the complainant’s uncle, but there is no conclusive material to establish that the injury was inflicted with a knife. The complainant himself states that the injured was admitted to a private dental hospital, contrary to the referral made by government medical officers, suggesting that the injury may pertain to dental trauma rather than a grievous knife wound. Despite the nature of the injuries and the absence of clear evidence, the investigating authorities have obtained a wound certificate and proceeded to arrest Accused No.3, subsequently invoking Section 109 of ‘the BNSS , alleging that the injury amounts to an attempt to murder. It is submitted that such an allegation is not supporte.d by the facts on record and that, even if that the or any 5 4 the entire prosecution version is accepted, the offence would at best fall under Section 118 of ‘the BNS’ and not under Section 109(1). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner furthermore submitted that 7. Petitioner/Accused No.4, is a student who has recently completed his intermediate education and has enrolled in a Bachelor of Commerce degree. The apprehension of arrest poses a serious threat to his academic and personal future. It is submitted that the Petitioner had earlier approached the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, by filing Crl.M.P.No.230 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by order dated 17.07.2025. Petitioner is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant bail to the Petitioner. 8. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations against the Petitioner are grave and substantiated by the statements of the witnesses. The incident in question involves a premeditated and violent attack on the de-facto complainant and his family members, including an attempt to cause grievous injury with a deadly weapon. The Petitioner, along with co-accused, is alleged to have trespassed into the complainant’s residence during the night hours and engaged in acts that endangered life and public peace. The contention of the Petitioner that there is no material to establish injury caused by a knife is untenable. The wound certificate issued by the medical authorities clearly indicates that the injury sustained by the complainant’s uncle is. grievous in nature. The referral from 6 the Government Hospital to a specialized surgical and dental centre does dimmish the severity of the injury; rather, it reinforces the need for advanced treatment, which is consistent with the nature of the assault alleged. It is further submitted that the offence under Section not 109(1) of ‘the BNS’, which pertains to attempt to commit murder, has been rightly invoked based on the facts and medical evidence. The act of attacking a the night, coupled with the presence of several person with a knife during accused and the use of a scene, indicates a coordinated and deliberate s role in the assault is not merely argument that the Petitioner is a student cannot override the gravity of transport vehicle to reach the attempt to inflict serious harm. The Petitioner incidental but active and direct. The and his future would be jeopardized if arrested the offence. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Petitioner was part of a group that engaged in criminal intimidation mischief, anticipatory bail application further affirms necessary for effective investigation. The Petitioner's willingness to cooperate is not sufficient to ensure justice, especially when the investigation is at a crucial stage and the recovery of weapons and gathering of further facts and physical assault. The dismissal of the earlier by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle the view that custodial interrogation IS are pending and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 7 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 11. After careful consideration of the submissions made by both the learned Counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there are specific overt acts against the Petitioner and they are grave. The accusation against the Petitioner is well founded. The Petitioner’s academic background does not outweigh the seriousness of the charges. Furthermore, importantly grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, against whom specific overt acts grave in nature are alleged, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection as per the decisions ' of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab^ and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhip. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. 12. '(1980) 2 see 565 ^ (2020) 5 see 1 / Sd/- M SRI NIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE eOPY// SEGTIO^FFIGER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Thapiballapalli Police Station, Chitttor District now Annamayya District. 0 2. One CC to Sri. Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. Two C.D Copies. VNA i HIGH COURT DATED; 14/08/2025 N ORDER ?? CRLP NO. 7951 OF 2025 I 0 2 SEP 2025 Curreni section ^ allowing the criminal petition