APHC010419112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8505/2025 Between: 1.SARASAMMA ALIAS POTU SARASWATHI, W/O BRAHMAIAH, 58 YRS, R/O KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.ADILAKSHMI ALIAS MUVVA ADILAKSHMI, W/O GURAVAIAH, 38 YRS, R/O KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.NARAYANAMMA ALIAS NAGAM NARAYANAMMA, R/O KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. AGED ABOUT 36 YRS 4.NANDINI ALIAS NAGAM NANDINI, D/O KASAYYA, 19 YRS, R/O KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5.JYOTHI ALIAS POTU JYOTHI, W/O GOPAIAH, 20 YRS, R/O SIVARAMPURAM, THALLURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District., Through S.H.O., Thalluru Police Station, Prakasam District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.N RAVI PRASAD 2 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.7 to 11 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.16 of 2025 of Thalluru Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2025 at 05:00 hours, at Sivarampuram Village, Thalluru Mandal, a violent incident occurred arising out of a pre-existing land dispute between the family of the complainant and the accused group. The matter was formally reported to the police station at 13:00 hours, pursuant to hospital intimation and the statement of the complainant, Smt. Potu Chiranjeevi. On the preceding night, i.e., on 21.03.2025 at around 21:00 hours, accused persons viz., Potu Seethaiah (A1), Potu Venkatarao (A2), Kotaiah (A3), Srinu (A4), Venkatarao (A5), and others, in furtherance of a common intention, picked up a quarrel with Potu Srinu, a relative of the complainant. Upon witnessing the altercation, the complainant, her husband Veeranjaneyulu, and one Kotaiah intervened to rescue Potu Srinu. During the 3 said intervention, accused persons physically assaulted Kotaiah, causing a bleeding injury to his head. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband were also assaulted by the accused using hands and legs. 3. Subsequently, in the early hours of 22.03.2025, the accused persons, bearing prior enmity and with premeditated intent, summoned additional individuals, namely Potu Pedda Gopi (A6), Sarasamma (A7), Adilakshmi (A8), Narayanamma (A9), Nandini (A10), Jyothi (A11), Pothu Raju (A12), Kittaiah (A13), and Rathamma (A14). All fourteen accused persons, in furtherance of a common object, unlawfully entered the complainant’s residence and assaulted Eswaramma, the complainant’s daughter-in-law. During the said attack, accused No.6/Potu Pedda Gopi inflicted grievous injuries upon Veeranjaneyulu by striking his head with an iron rod, resulting in profuse bleeding and loss of consciousness. The accused further assaulted him on other parts of the body. Following the incident, the complainant, with assistance from her relatives, shifted her husband Veeranjaneyulu to Sneha Hospital, Ongole, and subsequently to Upas Hospital, Ongole, for advanced medical treatment. As the injured Veeranjaneyulu remained unconscious, the complainant furnished her statement to the police, requesting initiation of legal proceedings. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 4. Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners have not committed any offence. They were falsely implicated in 4 this case. They are ready to abide any conditions to be imposed by this Court. It is further argued that prior to the present alleged incident, the Petitioners were attacked by the complainant and others, a report was lodged in connection with that attack, but FIR was registered as a case in Cr.No.17/2025 after registration of the present FIR. The prime Accused No.6 was enlarged on regular bail. All the Petitioners are women, residents of Prakasam District, went to see Accused Nos.1 to 3, who were hospitalized in Vijayawada because of the attack of the complainant and her other followers. There was no pre-planed thought or action on the part of the accused, it was a sudden provocation, Accused No.6 gave a blow on Veeranjaneyulu resulting his death later. It is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.7 to 11. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed. If the petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they would not be available for the investigation, and they will repeat the same offence. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contends that after the death of Veeranjaneyulu Section of law from 109 of ‘the BNS.,’ was altered to 103(1) of ‘the BNS’. LWs.1 to 7 are eyewitnesses. LW.2 is also an injured witness. After the death of Veeranjaneyulu, LWs.1 to 4 were re-examined. LWs.3 & 4 who are not only direct eyewitnesses but also injured witnesses 5 specifically stated about the abetment of the Petitioners encouraging Accused No.6 to kill the deceased and the Petitioners further beat the deceased and LW.2 as well. It is further contended that confession of Accused No.6 also indicates the names and specific overt acts committed by the Petitioners and their presence at the scene of offence. Lodging of FIR in Cr.No.17/2025 by the accused-party was only an afterthought. Grant of regular bail to Accused No.6 is not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the present Petitioners. It is urged to dismiss the bail application. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record, it is alleged that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.7 to 11 were present at the alleged scene of offence and encouraged other accused to attack the husband of the de-facto complainant. It is further alleged that the Petitioners beat the deceased with hands and legs. However, the de- facto complainant in her report lodged with the police, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, there are no specific overt acts attributed 6 against the Petitioner, only omnibus allegations are levelled against the Petitioners. Whereas in the statement of LW.1 and LW.3 they stated that the Petitioners perpetrated one Gopi to give a fatal blow to Veeranjaneyulu (deceased). As a result, he died later. The Section of law was altered from Section 109 of ‘the BNS’ to Section 103 of ‘the BNS’. 10. Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Accused Nos.1 to 3 suffered injuries. Therefore, Accused No.1 lodged a report 15 mins prior to the alleged occurrence of the offence mentioned in the Cr.No.16/2025. However, the police had registered that FIR after the registration of the present FIR. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were attacked by the followers of the de-facto complainant. Whereas, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the FIR lodged by Accused Nos.1 to 3 was only an afterthought. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further contends that the LW.3 is the son of the deceased. LW.1 is the wife of the deceased. There are improvements in their statements when compared to the averments in the FIR. Accused No.6 was already enlarged on regular bail in this case, and all the Petitioners are female. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners all are residents of Prakasam District and they came to Vijayawada to see Accused Nos.1 to 3, who suffered injuries and admitted in the hospital. Cleverly and purposefully the Petitioners were arraigned in this case as accused. No prior plan was there to attack 7 Veeranjaneyulu (deceased). It was due to sudden provocation Gopi/Accused No.6 gave a blow with an iron road to Veeranjaneyulu, which caused his death. 12. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.7 is aged about 58 years. Petitioner No.4 is aged about 19 years, no doubt, she is at an impressionable age. Petitioner No.5 is also at impressionable age of 20 years. It is contended that because of previous animosity in between the two groups, the instant case was registered against the Petitioners. Of course, there is a case and counter case. However, it is contended that the police had not conducted fair investigation in another crime registered at the behest of the accused herein. 13. Indeed, no weapon was seized from the Accused No.6. So far LWs.1 to 12 have been examined. Postmortem report also reveals that Veeranjaneyulu died due to attack of an iron rod. Nay, FIR is not be all end all. It is not an encyclopaedia of the entire case of prosecution. It is only a document to put the criminal law into motion. There are specific allegations that the Petitioners bet the deceased with their hands and legs. They participated in the attack resulting the death of Veeranjaneyulu. Accusations against the Petitioners are well-founded that they having entertained a premediated plan, all formed into unlawful assembly with common object, attacked the deceases, de-facto complainant and other. There are specific accusations levelled against the Petitioners. Their presence at the scene of offence with specific overt acts is established as per the statements of LWs.1 to 7 recorded under Section 161 8 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (Section 180 of ‘the BNSS’). The factum of release of Accused No.6 on regular bail is not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioners, as the husband of the de-facto complainant died in the alleged attack of the Petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to Petitioners/Accused Nos.7 to 11. 15. Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a grave offence nor a shield or protection for the persons who have allegedly committed grave offence, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2. CONCLUSION: 16. The Petitioners are disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. There are no merits in the case. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.08.2025. VTS