lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIVIARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8373 OF 2025 [3521] ._ ,i?. ¥j''S:-::%?I_? Between-. 1. Kanjula @ Kandula Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Aged about 47 years, R/o. Door.No.1-2-1, Ravipadu Road Reddy Nagar, Narsoraopet Town. 2. Cheederaboina Purnachanddra Rao, S/o. Hanumantharao, Aged about 28 years. Door No.3-59, Atchaiahpalem, Alavala, Palnadu District. petitioner/Accused No. 2 and A/12 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, through the S.H.O., Narasaraopet Rural Police Station. Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/A2 and A12 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with cr. No. No.16 of 2025 dated 15.01.2025 on the file of Rural Police Station] Narasaraopet, Palnadu District COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: Sri Nandireddy Vishnuvardhan Reddy COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Public Prosecutor 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Na.. 8373/2025 ORDER: •..\. - \ \ ±I. The Criminal Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarjk Suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS') by the petI'tI'Oner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest baI'l in COnneCtiOn WI'th Crime No.16 of 2025 of Rural PoII'Ce Station, Narasaraopet, palnadu District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under section 118(1),126(2), 351`(?),191 (2) read with 190 of the ,Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity [the BNSJ). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution js that on 14.01.2025 at 5:00 PM, the complainant, Yeruva Sal Mahesh Reddy, attended a birthday function held at a guest house situated in Atchammapalem village, Narasaraopet Mandal. The accused persons, namely Akhil (A1), Kanjula Srinivasareddy @ Bujji (A2), and others, were also present at the said function. During the course of the event, accused (A1) engaged in a verbal altercation with one of the rela{I-VeS Of the complainant. The complainant intervened and amicably resolved the said dispute. subsequently, accused (A1) returned to the venue accompanied by certain other individuals and, in furtherance of a common intention, physI-Cally assaulted the complainant and one chandrasekhar Reddy using a stick. After committing the said assault, the accused persons absconded from the scene. €.-I ._rty * i a..I . , > A.,-.--`.I --I ,___"J-, € z I ``+ }/ 3. The complainant and Chandrasekhar Reddy, having completed their participation in the function, returned to their respective residences at around 10:00 p.m., on the same day. Owing to bodily pain Sustained during the aforementioned assault, the complainant, accompanied by his friend Madduri Mahanandhi Reddy, proceeded to a nearby medical Shop `tO Procure medication. while en-route, the complainant was wrongfully restrained by Accused A1, A2, Mani (A3), Mustafa (A4), and oth,ers, who arrived on five motorcycles and were armed with soda bottles. The accused persons initiated another altercation and,I in a concerted act of aggression, assaulted the complainant using the said soda bottles. They further issued threats of dire consequences before fleeing the scene. As a result of the said assault, the complainant sustained bleeding inJ'urieS tO his left ankle and was subsequently admitted to sushmitha ortho care Hospital, 'Narasaraopet for medical treatment. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 4, Sr-I Nandi Reddy, the learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offenc`e and has been falsely implicated by the police. lt is further submitted that the Petitioners are the sole earning member of their families,' and he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. E- _` _\ \` ARC UMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 5. Perconfra, Ms.P.Akhjla Naidu, the learned AssI'Stant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bat-I to the petitioner, submit{jng that the I'nVeStigation is still underway and several material w,|tnesses remaI'n to be examI-ned. lt js contended that' I-f the Petitioners are released on pre- arrest bail, there is a strong likeII|hOOd that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoI'ng investigation and evading the process of law, and jt I'S urged that the petition be dismissed. 6. ` Heard the learned counsel for the petitl'oner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. -perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 7. Nowthe pointforconsideration is: {£Whether the pet-ltioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?" ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 8. As seen from the averments of the FIR, there are specific allegations agaI'nSt Accused No.2/Petitioner No.1. As a result of this specific overt act the de-facto complainant suffered grievous injury. LWs.1 to 14 have been examined. Material witnesses have spoken against the specific overt act of the petI'tiOner No.1/Accused No.2. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant Pre-arrest bail to PetitI'Oner No.1/Accused No.2. Hence, the criminal petition against PetitI'Oner No.1/Accused No.2 I-S dI-SmiSSed. 9. However, insofar as petitI'Oner No.2/Accused No.12 there is no reference about the petitioner in the FIR. _-`-* {~i* • -`` - , .-- .<, Iy // ',, / ) / E= I.` 10. Considering the nature and gravity Of the allegat'lonS levelled against the petitioner No.2/Accused No.12 and the alleged role Played by the petitioner No.2/Accused No.12 this Court is inclined tO grant Pre-arrest bail the petitioner No.2/Accused No.12. ll. ln the result, Grim-[nal Pet'ltion is Partly allowed w'[th the following conditions: iii- lV. V. ln the event of his arrest, th'e petitioner No.2/Accused No.12 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a Personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(R+upees Ten Five Thousand Only), With two suret'les for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting pol'lce officials. The Petitioner No.2/Accused No.12 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required. The Petitioner No.2/Accused No.12 shall not Cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. The Petitioner No.2/Accused No.12 shall appear before the station Holise Off-lcer 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. The Petitioner No.2/Accused No.12 shall not leave the diStr'lCt limits without the express permission from the Station House offic;r concerned. vj. The PetI'tI-Oner No.2/Accused No.12 shall surrender hI|S Passport, if any, to the jnvestigatI'ng Off]-Cer, lf he cla[-ms that he does not have passport, he shall submit,an affI-daVl't tO that effect to the I nvestigatI'ng OffI'Cer. .,,/. Sd/-SHAIK MOHD. RAFI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTAN-T sECl| To, ` 1. Two Public Prosecutor, High Court ofA.P., Amaravati (OUT) 2. The Station House officer, Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, palnadu District. 3. One CC {o Srj NandI-Teddy Vishnu vardhan Reddy Advocate [opuc] 4. One spare copy Ksv _i+ - \ _i_i,_,= {*`±,i;,, '2 a fl:,:i(rJ 7n25 Affi HIGH COURT DR.YLRJ DATE:21 -08-2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8373 of 2025 ALLOWING CRIMINAL PETITION