APHC010386802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7890/2025 Between: Killi Dali Naidu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. Isukapatla Ajay Krishna 2. Isukapatla.Ajay Krishna Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 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 3 for granting pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.363 of 2024 of Chodavaram Police Station, Chodavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7890 of 2025 Dated 22.08.2025 Sections 109(1), 118(1), 351(2), 49 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are residents of Ramajogipalem Village, Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.363 of 2024. The petitioners contend that they are being suspected by the Chodavaram Police without any valid basis, though they are residing in the village. It is further stated that due to certain land disputes in Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the police authorities registered Crime No.363 of 2024 at Chodavaram Police Station and arrested the petitioners, who were remanded to judicial custody before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge on 18.02.2025. However, in spite of the said remand, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chodavaram, has been allegedly harassing the petitioners on a daily basis. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri Isukapatla Ajay Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated in this case. They are the sole breadwinner of their family. They are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. It is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7890 of 2025 Dated 22.08.2025 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would not be available for the investigation and they would escape from the clutches of law. However, it is submitted that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners, and requested to pass appropriate orders. 6. As seen from the record, there are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3. Two crimes have been registered one at the instance of the de-facto complainant in the present case, and another in Crime No.362 of 2024, which was lodged by one of the accused in this case about 15 minutes prior to the registration of Crime No.363 of 2024. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, the averments in the FIR disclose specific overt acts against the petitioners. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioners are the aggressors, while the de-facto complainant and others are the victims. 7. The allegation against petitioner/Accused No.2 is that he assaulted the victim with an iron rod and caused grievous injuries. In this case, there are three injured persons. L.Ws.3 and 5 to 10 are cited as eye-witnesses. The medical certificate is yet to be received, and some more witnesses remain to be examined. The material part of the investigation is not yet completed. Thus, there are specific overt acts clearly attributed to the petitioners 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7890 of 2025 Dated 22.08.2025 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and their alleged role played in this case, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition, as the petitioners are disentitled for grant of pre- arrest bail. Grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license nor a shield or protection to those against whom specific overt acts are there, as per the judgment of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.08.2025 KMS 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7890 of 2025 Dated 22.08.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7890/2025 Dated 22.08.2025 KMS