APHC010418352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8937/2025 Between: Ghanta Vekateswarlu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Inspector Of Police ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.66 of 2018 of SavalyapuramPolice Station, registered for the offences punishable under 2 Sections 120-B, 452, 302, 380, 109 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). 2. The prosecution's case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner/accused No.4 did not appear before the learned trial Court on 10.10.2022. Consequently, the learned trial Court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (N.B.W.) due to no representation upon receipt of summons, as per docket entries. Subsequently, on 13.06.2024, the trial Court issued a fresh N.B.W. against the petitioner/accused No.4. Upon execution of the N.B.W., the petitioner/accused No.4 was produced before the learned trial Court on 17.09.2024 and was sent to remand. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri K.Ranga Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 submits thatthe petitioner, being a seasonal laborer, had to go to other districts for his livelihood. Therefore, he could not present before the learned trial Court. The petitioner was arrested on 17.09.2024. He has been in judicial custody for the past 356 days. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and 3 prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner would cooperate with the trial, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail, contending that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would again fail to appear before the learned trial Court. Hence, urged the dismissal of the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The petitioner, having received summons, had not chosen to present himself before the Court on 10.10.2022. Therefore, the learned trial Court was 4 constrained to issue an N.B.W. on 13.06.2024. He was arrested on 17.09.2024. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Savalyapuram Village and Mandal, Guntur District (now Palnadu District). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a seasonal laborer, had to go to other districts for his livelihood. Therefore, he could neither appear nor instruct his counsel to file an application for condoning his absence before the learned trial Court. The case is currently at the stage of consideration for framing charges. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 356 days. The learned trial Court, having noted that he has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner, ought to have taken steps to expedite the hearing of the case by framing charges. Until guilt is proved, the petitioner is presumed innocent. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to heexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of theXIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. ii. The petitioner/accused No.4 shall appear on each and every adjournment before the trial Court. If the petitioner fails to 5 attend, the learned trial Court is at liberty to secure the presence of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.09.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8937 of 2025 Date:08.09.2025 S D P