VEPURI DORASWAMY KARUNANIDHI @ KARUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CRLP/8455/2025 · 2025-08-21
Y Lakshmana Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29317 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29317 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010419352025
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: 8455/2025 Between:
1. VEPURI DORASWAMY KARUNANIDHI @ KARUNA, S/O. VEPURI DORASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 7-69, DRIVERS COLONY, OTERU VILLAGE TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Through Station House Officer, Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati, Tirupati District
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:
2
ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No. 6 on bail in crime No. 135 of 2025 of Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308 (2) and 118 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 09-04-2025 at about 2.15 a.m., while the de facto complainant and his friend Narendra were proceeding towards Air Bypass Road and when they reached in front of Rayalaseema College, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati, the accused came on motorcycle in rash and negligent manner towards the de facto complainant and his friend. When the de facto complainant and his friend questioned, the accused called some other accused over phone. Meanwhile, four other accused came in white colour car. All the accused attacked the de facto complainant and his friend Narendra with stone and iron rod, resulting which the de facto complainant received blood injury on face and the de facto complainant and his friend received blunt injuries, and one of the accused forcibly took iPhone 14 Pro Max mobile from the de facto complainant which is worth of Rs.50,000/- and escaped from the scene.
3. Sri K.Chethan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his continued incarceration would cause
3 undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes 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, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of 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 bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he 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 and perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, there are specific overtacts attributed against the petitioner-accused No. 6 in the statement of L.W.1. The petitioner was present at the scene of offence. Custodial interrogation and identification are required to be conducted in this case. Investigation is still at the nascent stage. Some more material witnesses have to be examined. A learned single judge of this Court granted pre-arrest bail to accused No. 4 by order dated 01-07-2025 in Criminal Petition No. 5781 of 2025. Of course, the role of accused No. 4 is altogether different from the role played by the petitioner. Hence, the principle of parity cannot be drawn in favour of the petitioner. There are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4
7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 22.08.2025 JSK
5 THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8455 OF 2025
Date: 22.08.2025
JSK