APHC010408242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8220 OF 2025 Between: 1. SARE SATEESH KUMAR, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. RESIDENT OF MOOLASAGARAM, NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi, Through Nandyal III Town Police Station Nandyal ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA 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.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.80 of 2025 of Nandyal-III Town Police Station, Nandyal District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 118(2) and 351(2) read with 31(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) 2. The case of the prosecution is that the on 28.05.2025 at 20.00 hrs beside Lucky Café, Bommalasatram, Nandyal Town the Accused No.1 and 2 unnecessarily picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant and thrown a cool drink bottle on him and the same was hit to his nose and caused bleeding injury and also to upper lip. Accused No.2 thrown another cool drink bottle towards elder brother of the defacto complainant, it was also hit to his right shoulder and beat on his head and caused dumb injuries. Hence crime was registered. 3. Mr. Satyanarayana Nimmala, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning members of the family and, they are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr.Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the FIR and other statements, there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner and LW-7 suffered grievous injuries and another witnesses suffered simple injury. Pursuant to the receipt of grievous injuries, section of law was altered to 118(2) of BNS. There are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner/ Accused No.2 have got three adverse antecedents. Pre-arrest bail to an accused is neither license for commission of an offence nor a shield or a protection for having committed an offence by a person as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi2. 7. The contention that the defacto complainant and Accused-1 got financial transactions is not a ground for granting pre-arrest bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and same is liable to be dismissed. 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.08.2025 KK