IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA R; CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7912 OF 2025 I Between: 1. Allapaka Srinivasulu, S/o. Chinna Penchalaiah, Aged about years, Sarpanch of Pantapalem village R/o. Pantapalem Village Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Thinnelapudi Brahmanandam, S/o. Venkata Seshaiah, Aged about 42 years. Vice Sarpanch of Pantapalem village, R/o. Kolamitta Village, H/o. Pantapalem, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Madineni Prabhakar Naidu, S/o. Dasaradha Rama Naidu, Aged about 68 years, R/o. Epuru village, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Ravi Vijaya Kumar Reddy, S/o. Sankar Reddy, Aged about 47 years, MPTC Member of Pantapalem village R/o. Epuru village, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 5. Vedicherla Rangaiah, S/o.late Pullaiah, Aged about 74 years, R/o. Epuru village, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District ...Petitioners/Accused No.A4 to A8 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.A4 to A8 on bail in the event ofvtheir arrest in Cr. No. 177/2025 on the file of Muthukur Police Station under Sections 109 (1) r/w. 3 (5)of BNS; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.Subodh, Advocate for the Petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following; 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners-acc used Nos. 4 to 8 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No. 177 of 2025 of Muttukur Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 109 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on the de facto complainant is the active supporter of T.D.P. political party and working as Party Youth Secretary, Muttukur Mandal, and accused No. 1 is active supporter of YSR Congress Party and they are living by doing transportation of water to Palm Oil Factories and they got water tankers to transport the water from the borewell of Vedicharla Rangaiah of Kollamitta Village and by the time of filling water, accused No. 1 wrongfully restrained the tankers of L.W.1 and refused to fill the water and picked up quarrel and accused No. 1 challenged to kill him at any time and the same was pacified by / the drivers of the tankers. Thereafter, accused No. 1, colluding with accused Nos. 2 and 3, hatched a plan to kill L.W.1 with intention to clear their way in political rivalry. Accordingly, accused Nos. 1 to 3 came to the house of complainant armed with knives and iron bits. Accused No. 1 stabbed the complainant with knife over his hack, left side chest and on hands. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 also attacked with knives and iron bits and stabbed him indiscriminately. During the custodial interrogation of accused No. 1, he confessed that these petitioners colluded with him and hatched the plan to do away the de facto complainant. 3. Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the petitioners are innocents of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of their families. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest 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 |Dre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. It is urged to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, during the trial. Accused No. 6 is aged about 68 years and accused No. 8 is aged about 74 years and they belonging to Y.S.R. Congress Party. Prosecutor further submits that there are C.D.Rs. between the petitioners and accused No. 1 are Learned Assistant Public as on the date of the alleged offence. Mere C.D.Rs. in between the petitioners and accused No. 1 is not a conclusive proof to determine that they conspired together and attacked the de facto complainant ex facie. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioners and as the names of the petitioners were not found in FIR and their names were brought on record only after confessional statement of accused No. 1 recorded by police in their custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following conditions: (i) In the event of their arrest, the petitioners-accused Nos. 4 to 8 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; 4 6. On perusal of the record, the names of the petitioners were not referred in the FIR by the de facto complainant. Accused No. 1 was given to police custody on 12-07-2025. In that police custody, No. 1 gave a confession against the petitioners that they would legal assistance if required to accused Nos. accused provide 1 to 4. There is no reference in the confessional mediatornama dated 12-07-2025 about the permission granted by learned jurisdictional magistrate for giving police custody of accused No. 1. Ironically, accused No. 1 submitted a statement to learned jurisdictional magistrate on 13-07-2025 at about 5 p.m. that the police while interrogating him, four T.D.P. persons were there in the office of Inspector of Police. Accused No. 1 further stated that he is an illiterate and his confession was not read over to him. He further stated that four T.D.P. leaders by name P.Ram Mohan Reddy, P.Sridhar Reddy, P.Satyam Reddy threatened him with dire and E.Ram Mohan Reddy consequences that his wife would also be implicated in this case if accused No. 1 reveals anything to learned The statement was recorded by learned jurisdictional magistrate. magistrate. Be that as it may, the victim was already discharged from hospital. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners. As of now in the record, there is only confessional statement of accused No. 1 which was recorded in the custody of police. The validity of the same is to be examined in the light ‘^“ction 25 of the 6 The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 to 8 shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; (ii) (iii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 to 8 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses- (iv) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 to 8 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet. (V) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 to 8 shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned; and (Vi) The petitioners-accused Nos. 4 to 8 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. SD/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR oy rlOFFlCER //TRUE COPY// SECTIO For To 1. The Station House Officer, Muthukur Police Station, Nellore District 2. One CC to Sri. C.Subodh , Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 4. One spare copy MM HIGH COURT Dr.YLR.J DATED:29/08/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7912 of 2025 / ALLOWED o fc3» 4 « A StP €J9 ★